Search

There is increasing concern regarding the attrition of surgeon-scientists in cardiothoracic (CT) surgery. However, the characteristics of CT surgeons who are actively leading basic science research (BSR) have not been examined. We hypothesized that early exposure to BSR during training and active grant funding are important factors that facilitate the pursuit of BSR among practicing CT surgeons.We created a database of 992 CT surgeons listed as faculty at accredited United States CT surgery teaching hospitals in 2018. Data regarding each surgeon's training/professional history, publication record, and National Institutes of Health funding were acquired from publicly available online sources. Surgeons who published at least one first- or last-author paper in 2017-2018 were considered to be active, lead researchers.Of the 992 CT surgeons, 73 (7.4%) were actively leading BSR, and 599 (60.4%) were actively leading only non-BSR. Only 2 women were actively leading BSR. Surgeons actively leading BSR were more likely to have earned a PhD degree (20.5% versus 9.7%, P = 0.0049), and more likely to have published a first-author BSR paper during training (76.7% versus 40.9%, P0.0001). Surgeons actively leading BSR were also more likely to have an active National Institutes of Health grant (34.2% versus 5.8%, P0.0001), especially an R01 grant (21.9% versus 2.5%, P0.0001).A small minority of CT surgeons at academic training hospitals are actively leading BSR. In order to facilitate the development of surgeon-scientists, additional support must be given to trainees and junior faculty, especially women, to enable early engagement in BSR.

Objectives/hypothesis To better understand the obstacles facing residents and K-awardee faculty in choosing a clinician-scientist career in otolaryngology. Study design Anonymous survey. Methods An anonymous, online Qualtrics survey was sent to residents participating in T32 training grants and K-awardee junior faculty. The survey was sent to the residents with the permission of their program chair. The results of this survey were compiled and analyzed. A separate survey was sent to current K-awardees in U.S. academic programs. Both surveys were then compared to a survey published in 2008 to determine if the concerns and obstacles faced by aspiring clinician-scientists are still present. Results Residents felt that combining a research and clinical career presented many obstacles, including a lower salary, competition with PhDs for grant funding, and the lack of departmental support. Prolonging their training to include a fellowship was not a deterrent. Family/spousal issues which ranked as the primary concern previously were no longer given the same level of importance. The major concerns of K-awardees were the economic disparity of clinician-scientists with their clinical counterparts, the lack of mentors, and department support. Forty percent received their K-award after first try, 100% after two revisions, and one has received an R grant funding. Conclusions The obstacles facing clinician-scientists in otolaryngology are highlighted by this survey and require attention by our academic programs, National Institutes of Health, and specialty societies. Level of evidence NA Laryngoscope, 2021.

Supplemental Digital Content is available in the text., Background: Until 2016, community health centers (CHCs) reported community health workers (CHWs) as part of their overall enabling services workforce, making analyses of CHW use over time infeasible in the annual Uniform Data System (UDS). Objective: The objective of this study was to examine changes in the CHW workforce among CHCs from 2016 to 2018 and factors associated with the use of CHWs. Research Design, Subjects, Measures: The two-part model estimated separate effects for the probability of using any CHW and extent of CHW full-time equivalents (FTEs) reported in those CHCs, using a total of 4102 CHC-year observations from 2016 to 2018. To estimate the extent to which increases in CHW workforce are attributable to real growth or rather are a consequence of a change in reporting category, we also conducted a difference-in-differences analysis to compare non-CHW enabling services FTEs between CHCs with and without CHWs before (2013–2015) and after (2016–2018) the reporting change in 2016. Results: The rate of CHCs that employed CHWs rose from 20.04% in 2016 to 28.34% in 2018, while average FTEs stayed relatively flat (3.32 FTEs). Patient visit volume (larger CHCs) and grant funding (less reliant on federal but more reliant on private funding) were significant factors associated with CHW use. However, we found that a substantial portion of this growth was attributable to a change in UDS reporting categories. Conclusion: While we do not address the reasons why CHCs have been slow to use CHWs, our results point to substantial financial barriers associated with CHCs’ expanding the use of CHWs.

We explored the patterns and distribution of National Institutes of Health grant funding for urological research in the United States.The National Institutes of Health RePORTER database was queried for all grants awarded to urology departments between 2010 and 2019. Information regarding the value of the grant, funded institution, successful publication of the research, and the category of urological subspecialty were collected. Data on principal investigators were extracted from publicly available information.There were 509 grants awarded to Urology between 2010 and 2019 for a total value of $640,873,867, and a median per-project value of $675,484 (IQR 344,170-1,369,385). Over the study period, total funding decreased by 15.6% and was lower compared to other surgical subspecialties. Most grants were awarded by the National Cancer Institute and National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (85%) to Western or North Central institutions (52.5%), and had principal investigators specialized in urologic oncology (56.4%), followed by general urologists (21.5%). Female principal investigators led 21.6% of Urology grants and were more likely PhD basic scientists than males (64.4% vs 38.2%, p=0.001). In total, 10,404 publications linked to the 509 grants were produced, of which 28.5% were published in journals with an impact factor ≥10.Urology is underrepresented in National Institutes of Health grant funding compared to other surgical fields. During the past decade there was a further decrease in the total budget of National Institutes of Health grants to Urology.

Background Women have now surpassed men in the number of medical students currently enrolled in the United States. However, in surgical subspecialties including neurosurgery, women continue to be significantly underrepresented. The objective of this study was to investigate the academic accomplishments of women in academic neurosurgery as measured by academic title, publications, and grant funding. Methods A list of ACGME (Accreditation Council for Graduate Medical Education) accredited neurosurgery departments was utilized and department websites were reviewed to collect data regarding female and male faculty. Scopus and National Institutes of Health (NIH) RePORTER websites were used to collect other variables. Results Women comprise 11.0% of all academic neurosurgeons. Of the 116 neurosurgery residency programs in the United States, 77% have at least 1 female faculty member. There are 172 academic female neurosurgeons in practice in the United States currently. Of academic female neurosurgeons, 61% are assistant professors, 21% are associate professors, and 18% are professors. Only 20 women hold leadership positions in their departments. Women have an average of 39.7 49.6 publications. The average h-index of academic female neurosurgeons is 12.0 11.1. Twenty-two women have or have had NIH funding with an average cumulative total grant value of $3,409,919. Having NIH funding and more publications is associated with higher academic rank and holding a leadership position. Women have significantly less funding and publications than men. Conclusions Women represent younger faculty with expected publication and grant funding productivity. As women continue to advance into more senior positions, the trends for number of publications and grant funding is expected to increase.

Introduction: National Institute of Health (NIH) stated in their strategic plan that a diverse research workforce is an important goal for the advancement of health care science; however, there is little evidence to show funding goes to National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR) minority nurse scientists. The study’s aim was to determine NINR grant recipients’ race/ethnicity, gender, and licensed nurse status. Methods: A descriptive research design was used with NIH providing NINR award recipients’ names and employing organizations. An online survey with questions about their gender, race, ethnicity, and being a licensed nurse was sent to 619 award recipients. Results: Survey responses were collected from 135 NINR recipients receiving awards. Almost 50% NINR grant recipients were non-nurses. With licensed nurse recipients, White female was the dominate race and gender. Hispanic licensed nurses were 6.8% of the NINR grant recipients over the 3-year period. In addition, Asians and Blacks were the lowest race categories at 4.1% award percentage over the 3-year period. Conclusions: NIH strategic plan is for a diverse research workforce in order to advance health care science. NINR must lead the efforts to grow a diverse nursing workforce including Hispanic and underrepresented nurses in order to successfully compete in NINR grants and funding.

National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding has declined among cardiothoracic surgeons. R01 grants are a well-known mechanism to support high-impact research, and we sought to clarify the association between NIH funding and academic achievement. We hypothesized that cardiothoracic surgeons who acquired R01 funding exhibit greater research output and faster career advancement. All cardiothoracic surgeons (n = 992) working at accredited United States cardiothoracic surgery training hospitals in 2018 were included. Institutional webpages, Scopus, and Grantome were utilized to collect publicly-available data regarding each surgeon's training and career history, research publications, and NIH funding. Seventy-eight (7.9%) surgeons obtained R01 funding as a principal investigator while 914 (92.1%) did not. R01-funded surgeons started their attending careers earlier (1998 vs 2005, P0.0001) and were more likely to have pursued dedicated research training (P0.0001). R01-funded surgeons authored 5.3 publications/year before their first R01 grant, 9.3 during the grant period, and 8.6 after the grant expired, all of which were greater than the publication rate of non-R01-funded surgeons at comparable career timepoints (2.0-3.0 publications/year, P0.0001). Among time-matched surgeons who completed medical school in 1998 or earlier (n = 73 R01-funded vs n = 602 non-funded), R01-funded surgeons have published more total publications (178.0 vs 56.5 papers, P0.0001) and exhibit a greater H-index (41.0 vs 19.0, P0.0001). These R01-funded surgeons have also advanced to higher academic ranks (P0.0001) and are more likely to be chiefs of their departments or divisions (42.5% vs 25.7%, P = 0.0035). Cardiothoracic surgeons who obtain R01 funding exhibit greater research productivity and faster career advancement.

Despite growing attention to gender disparities in higher education, women in academia still receive less research funding and recognition. Previous research on this gender gap has focused on biomedical, science, technology, engineering, and mathematics in the West—relatively silent on social sciences and Asia. This study examined how well staff gender, submission rate, success rate, and amount per award could predict annual changes in the number and amount of grant funding for academic years 2015/2016–2020/2021 in the Faculty of Social Science at the University of Hong Kong, a leading institution in social sciences in Asia. Decomposition analysis revealed that, compared to men, women had higher submission rates, which significantly contributed to an increase in the number of awards for the University in recent years in two major funding mechanisms (namely, General Research Fund and Early Career Scheme), especially from 2019/2020 to 2020/2021. Women also outperformed men in the success rate in the Early Career Scheme (i.e., within the first three years of faculty appointment). Both submission rate and success rate contributed to changes in award number and the total amount for the University over time. Overall, women had a higher submission rate, successful rate, and amount per award than their male counterparts. We have identified good practices and distinctive contextual factors in Hong Kong that likely contribute to the lack of gender bias for research grant application results in Social Sciences.

This qualitative research study explored librarian experiences at libraries that received funding for Affordable Care Act outreach through the “Connecting You to Coverage” funding opportunity offer...

Background The impact of the Association of Women Surgeons (AWS) Research Grant on academic productivity is unknown. Methods Grant applications were obtained from AWS archives. Applicant bibliometrics and National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants were identified via public databases. Results Twenty-four recipients between 1996 and 2020 and 68 nonrecipients between 2012 and 2017 were identified. $596,700 was awarded over the 25 years. Twenty-five percent of recipients subsequently acquired NIH funding amounting to $6,611,927.00, an 885–1008% return on investment. Compared to nonrecipients, grant recipients produced a greater mean number of publications (50.6 versus 36.4; p = 0.05), had a higher h-index (15.92 versus 10.7; p = 0.01), and were cited in higher impact factor journals (6.32 versus 3.9; p = 0.02). Conclusions Overall, previous AWS Research Grant recipients were more likely to become more impactful surgeon-scientists, as indicated by a higher post-award rate of NIH funding, total number of publications, and h-index than nonrecipients.

The growing literature on gender inequality in academia attests to the challenge that awaits female researchers during their academic careers. However, research has not yet conclusively resolved whether these biases persist during the peer review process of research grant funding and whether they impact respective funding decisions. Whereas many have argued for the existence of gender inequality in grant peer reviews and outcomes, others have demonstrated that gender equality is upheld during these processes. In the present paper, we illustrate how these opinions have come to such opposing conclusions and consider methodological and contextual factors that render these findings inconclusive. More specifically, we argue that a more comprehensive approach is needed to further the debate, encompassing individual and systemic biases as well as more global social barriers. We also argue that examining gender biases during the peer review process of research grant funding poses critical methodological challenges that deserve special attention. We conclude by providing directions for possible future research and more general considerations that may improve grant funding opportunities and career paths for female researchers.

Previous studies have identified significant gender discrepancies in grant funding, leadership positions, and publication impact in surgical subspecialties. We investigated whether these discrepancies were also present in academic vascular surgery.Academic websites from institutions with vascular surgery training programs were queried to identify academic faculty, and leadership positions were noted. H-index, number of citations, and total number of publications were obtained from Scopus and PubMed. Grant funding amounts and awards data were obtained from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Society for Vascular Surgery websites. Industry funding amount was obtained from the Centers for Medicare and Medicaid Services website. Nonsurgical physicians and support staff were excluded from this analysis.We identified 177 female faculty (18.6%) and 774 male faculty (81.4%). A total of 41 (23.2%) female surgeons held leadership positions within their institutions compared with 254 (32.9%) male surgeons (P = .009). Female surgeons held the rank of assistant professor 50.3% of the time in contrast to 33.9% of men (P .001). The rank of associate professor was held at similar rates, 25.4% vs 20.7% (P = .187), respectively. Fewer women than men held the full professor rank, 10.7% compared with 26.2% (P .001). Similarly, women held leadership positions less often than men, including division chief (6.8% vs 13.7%; P .012) and vice chair of surgery (0% vs 2.2%; P .047), but held more positions as vice dean of surgery (0.6% vs 0%; P .037) and chief executive officer (0.6% vs 0%; P .037). Scientific contributions based on the number of each surgeon's publications were found to be statistically different between men and women. Women had an average of 42.3 publications compared with 64.8 for men (P .001). Female vascular surgeons were cited an average of 655.2 times, less than half the average citations of their male counterparts with 1387 citations (P .001). The average H-index was 9.5 for female vascular surgeons compared with 13.7 for male vascular surgeons (P .001). Correcting for years since initial board certification, women had a higher H-index per year in practice (1.32 vs 1.02; P = .005). Female vascular surgeons were more likely to have received NIH grants than their male colleagues (9.6% vs 4.0%; P = .017). Although substantial, the average value of NIH grants awarded was not statistically significant between men and women, with men on average receiving $915,590.74 ($199,119.00-$2,910,600.00) and women receiving $707,205.35 ($61,612.00-$4,857,220.00; P = .416). There was no difference in the distribution of Society for Vascular Surgery seed grants to women and men since 2007. Industry payments made publicly available according to the Sunshine Act for the year 2018 were also compared, and female vascular surgeons received an average of $2155.28 compared with their male counterparts, who received almost four times as much at $8452.43 (P .001).Although there is certainly improved representation of women in vascular surgery compared with several decades ago, a discrepancy still persists. Women tend to have more grants than men and receive less in industry payments, but they hold fewer leadership positions, do not publish as frequently, and are cited less than their male counterparts. Further investigation should be aimed at identifying the causes of gender disparity and systemic barriers to gender equity in academic vascular surgery.

Research productivity is a vital component to an academic neurosurgeon's career. We sought to evaluate gender differences in NIH funding among faculty in neurological surgery departments. NIH funding awarded to PIs of neurological surgery departments from 2014 to 2019 were obtained and analyzed for gender differences in funding trends, with attention to terminal degree and academic rank, as well as publication range in length of years and h-index. 79.4% of all NIH grants were awarded to male PIs, with the remaining 20.5% given to their female counterparts. Mean of the total NIH grants awarded to men was significantly higher at $1,796,684 (± Standard Error of Mean (SEM) $155,849, IQR: $1,759,250) compared to women at $1,151,968 (± SEM $137,914, IQR: $1,388,538) (P = 0.022). Mean NIH funding per grant for men was $365,760 (± SEM: $39,592, IQR: $189,692) and for women was $292,912 (± SEM: 28,239, IQR: $283,177). Differences in mean NIH funding per grant approached but did not reach statistical significance between men and women (P = 0.122). When stratified for academic rank, there was a significant difference in mean NIH funding per grant between men and women on the associate professor level (p 0.005), with women exceeding men in funding at this academic level, with other academic ranks remaining non-significant. Overall, male neurosurgeons receive significantly more total NIH grant funding than their female counterparts, except at the level of associate professor where women were found to surpass men.

Academics working in higher education institutions often take part in research activities as part of their role and are often under pressure to publish papers and source grant funding. In addition,...

Why are women underrepresented in the fields of science, technology, and innovation? Using a sample of Gates and NIH grant applications submitted by a common pool of US-based academic researchers, we implement a range of text analysis methods associated with gendered language. We find that despite significant institutional differences, there are consistent gender differences in scientific communication. By contrast, we find starkly differing impacts of these text characteristics on funding outcomes across our institutional settings. Our findings suggest that institutional reform is likely to be a viable strategy for increasing gender inclusion in science and technology.

Background Surgeons from under-represented backgrounds are less likely to receive academic tenure and obtain leadership positions. Our objective was to query the curriculum vitaes (CVs) of SBAS leadership to develop a benchmarking tool to promote and guide careers in academic surgery. Methods CVs from academic leaders were reviewed for academic productivity at early career stages—the first 5-and 10-years. Variables queried: peer-reviewed publications, grant funding, surgical societal involvement, invited lectureships and visiting professorships. Results Of 20 CVs, 41 leadership positions including 13 SBAS Presidents were identified. At 5- and 10-years, respectively, the academic productivity increased: 20.6 and 52.3 publications; 4.7 and 9.7 grants; 18 and 42.6 lectures/professorships. Conclusion The CV benchmarking tool may be a useful framework for aspiring academic surgeons to track their progress relative to successful SBAS members. Creative strategies like these, paired with faculty mentorship and sponsorship are necessary to improve the ethnic diversity in academic surgery.

Peer-review is widely used throughout academia, most notably in the publication of journal articles and the allocation of research grants. Yet peer-review has been subject to much criticism, including being slow, unreliable, subjective and potentially prone to bias. This paper contributes to this literature by investigating the consistency of peer-reviews and the impact they have upon a high-stakes outcome (whether a research grant is funded). Analysing data from 4,000 social science grant proposals and 15,000 reviews, this paper illustrates how the peer-review scores assigned by different reviewers have only low levels of consistency (a correlation between reviewer scores of only 0.2). Reviews provided by ‘nominated reviewers’ (i.e. reviewers selected by the grant applicant) appear to be overly generous and do not correlate with the evaluations provided by independent reviewers. Yet a positive review from a nominated reviewer is strongly linked to whether a grant is awarded. Finally, a single negative peer-review is shown to reduce the chances of a proposal being funding from around 55% to around 25% (even when it has otherwise been rated highly).

Introduction Predatory journals have been acknowledged as an increasing concern in the scholarly literature over the last decade, but research on the subject has been sparse. Research that has focused on predatory journals in the Canadian context has been even rarer, and limited to work focused on a single university. This study explores publishing trends in predatory journals by authors affiliated with Canadian Universities. Methods Articles published by authors at 30 Canadian universities, including all universities in the U15, were pulled from select predatory journals. Key data including author affiliation, article type, discipline, and grant information were extracted from the articles. Results All universities in the study were found to have publications in predatory journals. The health sciences accounted for 72% of the publications, and the sciences for 20%. Research articles accounted for 50% of the articles. Opinion, editorial, or commentary pieces accounted for 24% and 19% were review articles. Grant funding was indicated in 34% of the articles, with NSERC and CIHR being top funders. The research-intensive U15 universities were found to publish more in predatory journals than their non-U15 compatriots, even when the universities were of similar size. Discussion Canadian scholars were found to publish in predatory journals, particularly those scholars from the health sciences and research-intensive U15 universities. Grant funding was common, and often came from high profile funders like NSERC and CIHR. This exploratory suggests that policy and education initiatives may be warranted in Canadian contexts, especially in the health sciences and at research-intensive universities.

Michael T Kryshtalskyj,1 Matthew J Novello,2 Monali S Malvankar-Mehta,3,4 Marcelo T Nicolela,5 Cindy ML Hutnik3,6 1Department of Surgery (Section of Ophthalmology), University of Calgary, Calgary, Alberta, Canada; 2Department of Physiology and Pharmacology, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada; 3Department of Ophthalmology, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada; 4Department of Epidemiology and Biostatistics, Western University, London, Ontario, Canada; 5Department of Ophthalmology and Visual Sciences, Dalhousie University, Halifax, Nova Scotia, Canada; 6Department of Pathology, Western University, London, Ontario, CanadaCorrespondence: Michael T KryshtalskyjDepartment of Surgery (Section of Ophthalmology), University of Calgary, Eye Clinic, Rockyview General Hospital, Main (Fourth) Floor, Fisher Building, 7007 14th Street SW, Calgary, T2V1P9, Alberta, CanadaTel +1-(647)-938-4450Email michael.kryshtalskyj@ucalgary.caObjective: To outline the current impact of Canadian ophthalmology and vision science research as measured by novel research metrics.Design: Cross-sectional survey.Participants: All Canadian ophthalmologists (n = 687) and vision scientists (n = 119) with an online bibliometric profile and academic appointment at a major ophthalmology training centre were included.Methods: Faculty lists of Canada’s 15 major academic ophthalmology departments were obtained. Faculty names, appointments, sex, and educational background were recorded. Elsevier’s Scopus database was used to calculate H-index, m-quotient, and total citations for each faculty member. Details around grant funding were obtained through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) Funding Decisions Database.Results: Average H-indices were 7.42 ± 7.98 for ophthalmologists and 23.78 ± 15.25 for vision scientists. Higher academic appointment was correlated with higher h-indices and m-quotients (p < 0.0001 for both). Most academic departments had significantly more males than females (avg. 71% male, 29% female); however, more equal ratios were seen in faculties in Quebec. No significant differences in research impact were identified between male and female ophthalmologists when controlled for academic appointment and career stage (p > 0.05). In clinical ophthalmology research, the top three departments with the highest average H-indices were Western University, the University of Toronto, and Dalhousie University. The University of British Columbia, Université de Montréal, and McGill University received the most funding from the CIHR in the last 10 years.Conclusion: This study highlights the current scope of ophthalmology and vision science research in Canada. Important trends were identified in research productivity across academic rank, sex, and clinical subspecialty.Keywords: bibliometrics, h-index, m-quotient, scholarly impact, research, ophthalmology

Background American College of Surgeons level I trauma center verification requires an active research program. This study investigated differences in the research programs of academic and non-academic trauma centers. Methods A 28-question survey was administered to ACS-verified level I trauma centers in 11/12/2020–1/7/2021. The survey included questions on center characteristics (patient volume, staff size), peer-reviewed publications, staff and resources dedicated to research, and funding sources. Results The survey had a 31% response rate: 137 invitations were successfully delivered via email, and 42 centers completed at least part of the survey. Responding level I trauma centers included 36 (86%) self-identified academic and 6 (14%) self-identified non-academic centers. Academic and non-academic centers reported similar annual trauma patient volume (2190 vs. 2450), number of beds (545 vs. 440), and years of ACS verification (20 vs. 14), respectively. Academic centers had more full-time trauma surgeons (median 8 vs 6 for non-academic centers) and general surgery residents (median 30 vs 7) than non-academic centers. Non-academic centers more frequently ranked trauma surgery (100% vs. 36% academic), basic science (50% vs. 6% academic), neurosurgery (50% vs. 14% academic), and nursing (33% vs. 0% academic) in the top three types of studies conducted. Academic centers were more likely to report non-profit status (86% academic, 50% non-academic) and utilized research funding from external governmental or non-profit grants more often (76% vs 17%). Conclusions Survey results suggest that academic centers may have more physician, resident, and financial resources available to dedicate to trauma research, which may make fulfillment of ACS level I research requirements easier. Structural and institutional changes at non-academic centers, such as expansion of general surgery resident programs and increased pursuit of external grant funding, may help ensure that academic and non-academic sites are equally equipped to fulfill ACS research criteria.

Introduction: Orthopaedic trauma surgeons have an intricate relationship with the medical device industry. In the past decade, legislation has created transparency of monetary exchanges between physicians and industry. In 2013, the Physician Payments Sunshine Act was passed and ultimately led to the creation of the Open Payments Database. The purpose of this study was to evaluate trends in industry payments to orthopaedic trauma surgeons. Methods: A retrospective review of the Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services' Open Payments Database was conducted for general industry payments to orthopaedic trauma surgeons from 2014 to 2019. Total payments and subtype payments were analyzed for yearly trends. All payments were converted to 2019 US dollars to adjust for inflation. Descriptive statistics included analysis of payments, number of surgeons, types of payments, top contributing companies, and regional comparisons. Trends were assessed through the Jonckheere-Terpstra test. Statistical significance was defined at P < 0.05. Results: From 2014 to 2019, 45,312 individual payments were given to orthopaedic trauma surgeons (N = 3208) accounting for a total of $41,376,397.85 (USD), with a mean of $919.54 per payment. Increased trends were noted for median annual payments, number of payments, and number of surgeons receiving payments. Compared with 2014 ($460.91), median payments were increased by 90.9% in 2016 ($879.85), 102.6% in 2018 ($933.81), and 178.6% in 2019 ($1284.06). Payment subtypes that demonstrated increasing median payments included consulting fees (P = 0.028); education (P < 0.001); entertainment, food, and beverage (P < 0.001); and travel (P = 0.019). Decreases in median payments were seen in royalties (P = 0.044) and grant funding (P < 0.001). Regional comparisons demonstrated increasing trends in median payments in the midwest (P = 0.011), south (P < 0.001), and west (P = 0.003), but not in the northeast (P = 0.081). Discussion: In our study, we found that industry payments to orthopaedic trauma surgeons were increasing markedly between 2014 and 2019, particularly among consulting fees, education, entertainment, food and beverage, and travel.

When considering how to obtain funding for outreach services, GIS can be used to translate information about current outreach services and areas of need where services can have the most impact. Usi...

OBJECTIVES The objectives of the study were to determine the percentage of osteopathic emergency medicine (EM) residencies that require an original research project to meet the American Osteopathic Association requirement, describe the resources available to the residents and faculty members to complete their projects, and determine resident and faculty research productivity. METHODS This was a cross-sectional online survey of program directors from osteopathic EM residency programs. Participants were asked about demographics and specifics related to their program's research curriculum, which included resources, outcomes, and challenges. RESULTS The response rate was 48.21% (27/56) of program directors from EM residencies. The majority (82.77%) of respondents were from a community-based EM program, had a requirement that a research project be completed before graduation from residency (87.5%), and did not have a research associate program to assist in recruiting patients (83.33%). A physician research director was noted to lead the department in 53.57% of respondents, whereas 70.83% noted having a statistician on staff. A total of 2.91% of program faculty had received federal grant funding, and 13.88% had a research study indexed in PubMed. EM programs that had a physician-led research director were more likely to have core faculty with federal funding, articles indexed in PubMed, residents who submit their research for publication, and residents with competitive grants, as compared with programs without a research director. Program directors noted that analyzing data, designing a study, and generating a hypothesis were the biggest challenges to conducting research in the residency. CONCLUSIONS Osteopathic EM residencies significantly differ from their allopathic counterparts in their research curriculum, capabilities, and outcomes.

Summary Knowing how much money is invested in funding mental health research, and in which areas, is essential to inform strategy and track trends to achieve the best allocation of limited resources. However, no comprehensive categorisation system for mental health research is available and, therefore, national and international data on mental health research funding are minimal and not comparable. In this Health Policy paper, we consider the complexities involved in generating such data and propose an approach to classify mental health research grants. We then describe a method using search terms and algorithms for automatic identification and categorisation of mental health research grants listed in a major international database (Dimensions, Digital Science). The automated approach was validated using manually categorised grants data from funders based in the UK, which showed that the accuracy of this approach is satisfactory and comparable to manual classification. Finally, we consider areas of research that are difficult to classify, and how the automated approach can be refined using machine-learning. We argue that agreed definitions and automated approaches could facilitate collaborative reporting of mental health research funders nationally and internationally and improve the strategic dialogue in this area of research.

Patient and public involvement (PPI) refers to patients and/or members of the public being involved in research, not as subjects or participants, but as active partners and decision makers alongside researchers. In Health Service research, PPI is common place, and is often an essential requirement for grant funding. Sports Medicine has a lot in common with this field and should strongly consider integrating PPI within their work. Involving patients and members of the public in research decisions can help to ensure that the research is relevant and appropriate, while improving participant recruitment and retention too. This piece draws upon my own experiences from the research fields of Sports medicine and Health Service research, and addresses how PPI could benefit researchers within Sports medicine.

Purpose Research in radiation oncology (RO) is imperative to support the discovery of new uses of radiation and improvement of current approaches to radiation delivery and to foster the continued evolution of our field. Therefore, in 2016, the American Society of Radiation Oncology performed an evaluation of research grant funding for RO. Methods and Materials Members of the Society of Chairs of Academic Radiation Oncology Programs (SCAROP) were asked about funded and unfunded grants that were submitted by their departments between the fiscal years 2014 and 2016. Grants were grouped according to broad categories defined by the 2017 American Society of Radiation Oncology Research Agenda. Additionally, active grants in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools database were collated using RO faculty names. Results Overall, there were 816 funded (44%) and 1031 unfunded (56%) SCAROP-reported grants. Total grant funding was over $196 million. The US government funded the plurality (42.2%; 345 of 816) of grants compared with nonprofit and industry funders. Investigators from 10 institutions accounted for >75% of funded grants. Of the funded grants, 43.5% were categorized as “genomic influences and targeted therapies.” The proportion of funded to unfunded grants was highest within the category of “tumor microenvironment, normal tissue effects, and reducing toxicity” (53.4% funded). “New clinical trial design and big data” had the smallest share of SCAROP grant applications and the lowest percent funded (38.3% of grants). NIH grants to RO researchers in 2014 to 2016 accounted for $85 million in funding. From the 31 responding SCAROP institutions, there was a 28% average success rate for RO proposals submitted to the NIH during this period. Conclusions Though RO researchers from responding institutions were relatively successful in obtaining funding, the overall amount awarded remains small. Continued advocacy on behalf of RO is needed, as well as investment to make research careers more attractive areas for emerging faculty.

OBJECTIVE To assess contemporary trends in the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Career Development (K) Awards within the Departments of Surgery and its impact on the likelihood of achieving independent R01 grants. BACKGROUND The NIH provides K-type Career Development Awards to nurture young clinicians toward a productive academic career, thereby maintaining a pipeline of physician-scientists. However, the impact of K awards on career trajectory of surgeons remains unclear. METHODS The NIH grant data was queried for all new K08/K23 grants awarded to Departments of Surgery (1999-2019). Principal Investigators' data and grant-related information was obtained. RESULTS The NIH awarded 298 K08/23 surgical grants ($41,893,170) over the last 2 decades. Median budget increased from $116,370 to $167,508 (P

The report presents a detailed methodology for effectiveness in applying for grant funding for energy efficiency of enterprises. The general approach, which determines the potential efficiency, is indicated, on one hand, on the basis of the financial resources received from the operational programme, and on the other hand, the costs and the risk borne by the beneficiary implementing such type of grant funded projects.

OBJECTIVES The American Association for Thoracic Surgery, through its annual meeting, pilot grant funding, Scientific Affairs and Government Relations Committee activity, and academic development programs (Grant Writing Workshop, Clinical Trials Course, Innovation Summit), has aimed to develop the research careers of cardiothoracic surgeons. We hypothesized that American Association for Thoracic Surgery activities have helped increase National Institutes of Health grants awarded to cardiothoracic surgeons. METHODS A database of 1869 academic cardiothoracic surgeons in the United States was created in December 2020. National Institutes of Health grant records from 1985 to 2020 were obtained for each surgeon using National Institutes of Health Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results. Analyses were normalized to the number of active surgeons per year, based on the year of each surgeon's earliest research publication on Scopus. RESULTS A total of 346 cardiothoracic surgeons have received 696 National Institutes of Health grants totaling more than $1.5 billion in funding, with 48 surgeons actively serving as principal investigator of 66 R01 grants in 2020. The prevalence of research grants (7.4 vs 5.6 grants per 100 active surgeons, P

Research productivity is a key metric used in evaluation for advancement and promotion in academic medicine. There are known gender, race, and ethnicity disparities in otolaryngology research and funding. Female academic otolaryngologists have been shown to lag in scholarly productivity, representation at national meetings, leadership positions on journal editorial boards, and National Institutes of Health and industry funding. Underrepresented minorities have been shown to be less successful at obtaining Centralized Otolaryngology Research Efforts grant funding. Directed approaches, such as research funding for women and minorities or targeted recruitment and retention of underrepresented faculty, may move the field toward parity.

The coronavirus disease (COVID-19) pandemic has created significant stressors for the academic and scientific community, with unique challenges for early-career physician-scientists. The pandemic-related disruptions have significantly affected research productivity, access to mentoring, professional development and networking opportunities, funding, and personal wellness. This is especially true for pulmonary and critical care medicine faculty because of the burden of specialized clinical care responsibilities that the COVID-19 pandemic has demanded. Departmental, institutional, and national leadership should foster open dialogue to identify and mitigate these challenges to promote ongoing career development of early-career physician-scientists. Implementation of thoughtful interventions to address these challenges will provide essential support for junior faculty and help retain a generation of physician-scientists.

There has not been an assessment of the Holman Research Pathway (HRP) in radiation oncology (RO) in nearly 10 years. In this study, we sought to review the demographic characteristics, research productivity during and after residency, job placements, and National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant funding of RO residents who completed the HRP in the modern era.We created a comprehensive database of RO residents who completed the HRP between 2010 and 2019. Using a variety of data sources, we obtained demographic information, first-author manuscripts published in residency, and first- and last-author manuscripts published in the first 30 months after residency for each resident. In addition, we identified the first and current job and NIH grant funding for each resident.Ninety-seven RO residents who graduated from 50 medical schools and 25 residency programs were included. The majority were male (82.5%), had a PhD (92.8%), and identified as white (64.9%). Collectively, these residents published 212 first-author, PubMed-searchable manuscripts during residency (mean: 2.2) and 142 first- or last-author, PubMed-searchable manuscripts in the first 30 months after completion of residency (mean: 1.5). The number of first-author publications authored by HRP graduates during residency was highly correlated (r = 0.62; P.01) with the number of first- and last-author publications they authored during the first 30 months after completing residency. Ninety-six of the 97 residents (99.0%) were employed in full-time clinical positions after completing residency. Seventy-six HRP residents (78.4%) obtained an academic position as their first job after residency, only 4 of whom have since left academia, and 20 (20.6%) obtained a nonacademic position. Of the 75 HRP graduates currently employed in an academic position, 39 (52.0%) have their own laboratories. Twenty-three of the 96 HRP residents (24.0%) who secured employment in full-time clinical positions after residency switched jobs over the study period. Lastly, 33 of the 97 HRP residents (34.0%) have thus far received 47 extramural NIH research grants, 15 of which were R-01 grants.Over the past decade, the HRP has proven successful in training a new cohort of physician investigators in RO. Although productive, HRP residents have had relatively homogenous sex, educational, and racial backgrounds. Ensuring sufficient representation of residents from a variety of backgrounds in the HRP in the future will be crucial.

Introduction. Few randomized controlled studies have been conducted comparing a small to large fascial bite technique, yet recommendations have been made to standardize small bite closures. However, large scale randomized controlled trials require considerable effort and may benefit from a pilot study. Methods. This multi-center randomized controlled pilot study of adult patients undergoing median laparotomy incision investigated the feasibility of studying the outcomes between small and large surgical closure techniques. Results. Fifty of 100 planned patients consented, 32 patients completed surgery and 19 patients completed the one-year ultrasound. Enrollment was 2.7 versus 8 patients per month pre/post addition of study coordinator. Clinical results are summarized for feasibility demonstration purposes, but not analyzed for hypothesis testing. The total cost of the pilot study was $19,152.50 and took 22 months from first surgery to final one-year ultrasound. Conclusions. This feasibility assessment demonstrates the complexity of planning a large scale randomized trial evaluating small and large bite surgical closure technique. To expand this pilot study to a full scaled sample size study would require dedicated personnel and large grant funding.

Introduction As the world's largest funding source for biomedical research, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) supports physician-scientists with a discipline-specific R01 grant. Recently, scholarly activity disparities regarding investigator degree and gender have been highlighted in the medical literature among allopathic and osteopathic investigators of various medical backgrounds. We aimed to assess trends in internal medicine NIH R01 grants over the past decade. Methodology Internal medicine R01 funding was retrospectively obtained from a centralized online NIH database encompassing 2008 through 2017. Principal investigators (PIs) were then categorized by gender and academic degree(s). Two-way analysis of variance was used to analyze NIH grant funding trends over the time period studied. Results A total of 5,089 NIH R01s were awarded to internal medicine PIs, with an average value per grant of $469,270. Awardees were predominantly male (71.5%, 3,639/5,089). Most awards were issued to PIs with an MD degree (62.4%, 3,173/5,089), followed by PhD degree (36.3%, 1,845/5,089). DOs accounted for five awards over the time period studied (0.15%). MDs were awarded higher funding than PhDs ($466,494 and $421,576, p < 0.001), and females were awarded higher amounts than males ($462,771 and $444,868, p < 0.001). Investigators who held a second degree received more funding than PIs with a single degree ($476,693 and $439,693, p < 0.001). Conclusion In the decade under investigation, both gender and degree disparities existed within NIH R01 funding for PIs in the field of internal medicine, and osteopathic representation accounted for a paucity of R01 funding.

Objectives: Given that K grant funding secured in early career correlates with success in achieving R funding, we aim to describe the state of K and R funding by cancer type through time, hypothesizing that those cancer sites receiving more K grant allocation also receive greater R grant allocation. Methods: We queried the National Cancer Institute (NCI) Research portfolio from 2007-2017 for K and R grant sums by year and 19 cancer sites. Yearly K grant amount means, medians and sums were summarized for each cancer site, and the sums trended over time, as were yearly K grant number of funded studies. R grant sums were similarly trended through time using linear regression with year as the independent variable. The relationship between K and R grant funding was assessed using a multivariable linear regression model with K grant yearly total by year interaction and adjusting for cancer site, after applying a Box-Cox transformation of R grant total amount to gain linearity. All statistical analyses were performed in R, version 4.0.2. Results: Median yearly number of funded K grants range from 0-85 and median total yearly dollar amounts range from $0-10.66 million. Breast, leukemia and lung (85, 47, 45 respectively) have the highest median number of K grants per year; and breast, lung, and brain ($10.66, 5.95, and 5.85 million) have the highest total yearly amount of K grant funding. Cervical, ovarian and uterine cancer sites ranked 11, 9, and 14 in median number of yearly funded K grants over the 19 cancer sites considered, and 14, 13, and 17 in yearly median K grant dollar amounts. By total yearly R grant medians, the highest funded three cancer sites were breast, lung, and colorectal, while cervix, ovary and uterus ranked 11, 10, and 16. The rates of change over time in K grant funding for cervix, ovarian, and uterine cancer were 0.008, 0.107, and -0.014, while the rates of change in R grant funding for these sites were -1.088, 0.987, and 0.186. They ranked thus 14, 7, and 15 in K grant growth across all sites, and 17, 7, and 12 in R grant growth across sites. K grant funding is significantly associated with growth in R grant funding (p=0.021) adjusting for all cancer sites. Download : Download high-res image (162KB) Download : Download full-size image Conclusions: Gynecologic cancers are being funded at a lower rate and dollar amount than other cancer types at the K grant level, and this correlates as well with lower rates and dollar amounts at the R grant level. Given early career investigators typically foster innovation, it behooves us to advocate for and mentor more K grant funding recipients in gynecologic cancers. K and R grant funding also demonstrate stagnant growth in gynecologic cancers, also a potential arena for advocacy for allotment of funding.

Grantmaking in the UK takes place in a complex ecosystem of funders and grantees, against the backdrop of the wider social sector. Grant funding is a crucial source of funding for the social sector in the UK, often providing stability and flexibility that is not available from other sources such as fees and contracts or donations from the public.

During project emergence and establishment, mobilization of financial resources typically occurred in connection to either a specific activity or event. Examples are the mobilization of grant funding for a feasibility study of hydro-power siting on Mull, the mobilization of donations to counter the energy incumbent’s offer to the municipality in Schonau, or the mobilization of membership shares at the time of establishment.

We study how nonprofit profitability affects external funding. Using a sample of over 273 thousand U.S. nonprofit organization (NPO) observations between 1999-2019, we find that profitability is associated with greater public support; however, when NPOs are excessively profitable, they receive fewer subsequent donations. We find a similar relationship, but to a smaller degree, between NPO profitability and government grant funding. We infer that funders desire moderate but not overly high profitability. We also find that donors are more tolerant of normal and excessive profitability for NPOs in the healthcare industry, smaller NPOs, and NPOs with shorter planning horizons. The relationship between profitability and external funding is weaker during recession periods, with funders not penalizing excessively profitable organizations during economic downturns.

Now that we’ve explored recoverable grants (grants that convert to debt), and forgivable loans (loan that convert into grants), we’ll walk with Luke Crowley at Trackosaurus to explore how a grant can convert to equity. These types of agreements are called convertible grants and are applicable only in very specific circumstances, where early-stage for-profit start-ups wish to access grant funding for uses like research and development (R&D) that may or may not have a commercial upside.

Importance For decades, the American Head and Neck Society (AHNS) has been providing funding for meritorious research to investigators for studies on head and neck cancer. Recently, the AHNS Foundation sought to evaluate the impact of its funds for investigators and research. Objective To examine the mechanisms and outcomes of research funding by the AHNS. Design, Setting, and Participants An online survey was sent to all AHNS grant-funded principal investigators who had received funds from 1998 to 2018. Over this time, approximately $1.5 million in grant funding was awarded for research. Grants were separated into 2 groups: pilot and resident grants (PRs), approximately $10 000 each type of grant for 1 year, and career development grants (CDAs), approximately $20 000 to $80 000 over 1 to 2 years. Results Of 82 awardees, 49 individuals (60%) responded to the survey (36 men [73%]), including 28 recipients (57%) of PR grants and 21 recipients (43%) of CDA grants. Twenty-six studies (53%) were reported as translational, 20 studies (41%) were basic science, 2 studies (4%) were clinical, and 1 study (2%) was outcomes research. At the time of the award, 19 recipients (39%) were faculty/attending physicians, 11 recipients (22%) were fellows, and 19 recipients (39%) were residents/students. Twenty of 21 CDA grants (95%) were given to fellows or faculty. Thirty-seven grants (75%) resulted in publications, with a total of 84 publications reported. Nineteen CDA grants (90%) and 18 PR grants (64%) resulted in publication. Thirty-one (63%) investigators were awarded another grant after their AHNS grant: 19 CDA (90%), 8 pilot (44%), and 4 (40%) resident awardees reported having a future grant. Fourteen respondents (29%) reported a future K, R, or other major foundation grant. Of all awardees, 46 recipients (93%) were still conducting research and 40 recipients (82%) reported serving as academic faculty. Respondents also noted associations between grants and mentorship, investigator development, institutional support, and academic promotion. Conclusions and Relevance The findings of this study suggest that, over the past 20 years, the AHNS funding mechanism has resulted in 80% of awards generating publications and 63% resulting in future funding. The additional benefits of AHNS grant awards on the culture of research is also substantial. Continued analysis of these data may help guide future AHNS funding and award decisions.

This field note is an invitation for interested researchers to join an innovative global study dedicated to describing, analysing, and understanding the ways in which the provision of unrestricted grant funding unfolds in terms of organisational behaviour and project outcomes.

This work is a companion paper to “Quantifying the Relationship Between Predisaster Mitigation Spending and Major Disaster Declarations for US States and Territories.” Mitigation is a relatively new undertaking, especially for local jurisdictions, within the United States disaster policy. The Disaster Mitigation Act of 2000 (DMA 2000) requires local jurisdictions to plan for and implement mitigative strategies in order to access federal grant funding options for emergency management. After DMA 2000 went into effect in the mid-2000s, a supporting study by the Multi-Hazard Mitigation Council (MMC 2005) found that on average, mitigation projects yielded a benefit-cost ratio of 4:1 at the local level.1 This paper evaluates and compares predisaster mitigation spending and postdisaster assistance spending at the state and FEMA Regional levels, hypothesizing that as mitigation spending increases, postdisaster spending should decrease. The results however indicate the opposite, with most states showing increasing in both types of spending over time.

OBJECTIVE The aim of this study was to assess the contemporary trends in National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants awarded to surgical investigators, including potential disparities. BACKGROUND The NIH remains the primary public funding source for surgical research in the United States; however, the patterns for grants and grantees are poorly understood. METHODS NIH RePORTER was queried for new grants (R01, -03, -21) awarded to Departments of Surgery (DoS). Principal investigators' (PIs) data were extracted from publicly available information from their institutions' websites and/or professional social media accounts. RESULTS The NIH awarded 1101 new grants (total: $389,006,782; median: $313,030) between 2008 and 2018. Funding to DoS has doubled in the last 10 years ($22,983,500-2008 to $49,446,076-2018). Midwest/Southeast institutions and surgical oncologists accounted for majority of the grants (31.9% and 24.5%, respectively). Only 24.7% of the projects were led by female PIs, who were predominantly nonphysician PhD scientists (52% vs 37.7% PhD-only male PIs; P = 0.002). During this time, there was a significant increase from 12.4% to 31.7% in grants awarded to PIs with >15 years of experience. These grants were associated with 8215 publications; however, only 13.2% were published in high-impact journals (impact factor ≥10). 4.4% of the grants resulted in patents, and these were associated with higher award amounts ($345,801 vs $311,350; P = 0.030). On multivariate analysis, combined MD/PhD degree [odds ratio (OR) 5.98; 95% confidence interval (CI) 2.18-16.39; P < 0.001] was associated with improved odds of patent creation; conversely, practicing surgeon PIs affected patent creation negatively (OR 0.31; 95% CI 0.11-0.85; P = 0.024). CONCLUSION In the last decade, a greater proportion of NIH grants in DoS were awarded to more experienced investigators. Disparities exist among grantees, and female investigators are underrepresented, especially among practicing surgeons.

Expanding access to addiction screening and treatment in primary care, particularly in underserved communities, is a key part of the fight against the opioid epidemic. This study explored correlates of addiction treatment capacity in federally qualified health centers participating in the Midwest Clinicians' Network (MWCN).Two surveys were fielded to 132 MWCN health centers: the Health Center Survey and the Behavioral Health and Diabetes Provider Survey. A total of 77 centers and 515 primary care clinicians, respectively, responded to the surveys. Data were combined with data from the 2016 Uniform Data System and information about receipt of targeted Health Resources and Services Administration (HRSA) grant funding for addiction treatment capacity. Multivariable models examined associations between Medicaid reimbursement for addiction services, HRSA targeted grant funding, and different types of on-site addiction treatment capacity: psychiatrist and certified addiction counselor staffing, addiction counseling services, and medication-assisted treatment (MAT) for opioid addiction.Health centers that received Medicaid behavioral health reimbursement were five times as likely as those that did not to offer addiction counseling and to employ certified addiction counselors. Health centers that received targeted HRSA funding for addiction services were more than 20 times as likely as those that did not to provide MAT and more than three times as likely to employ psychiatrists. Training needs and privacy protections on data related to addiction treatment were cited as barriers to building addiction treatment capacity.Medicaid funding and targeted grant funding were associated with addiction treatment capacity in health centers.

OBJECTIVE Women represent approximately 28.0% of academic otolaryngologists. Previous studies have shown that women in academic medicine, including surgical subspecialties, have disparate career advancement opportunities and grant funding compared to male counterparts. Representation at major academic meetings is an important career advancement opportunity. In this study, we assess the representation of women at otolaryngology conferences. STUDY DESIGN Cross-sectional analysis of otolaryngology conference programs. METHODS All publicly available scientific programs from The American Academy of Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery Foundation Annual Meeting (AAO-HNSF), the Triological Society Annual Combined Sections Meeting (TS), and the Triological Society Annual Meeting at Combined Otolaryngology Spring Meetings (TS-COSM) were obtained and analyzed. Name and gender were collected, along with the type of role: speaker, panelist, oral session moderator, and other leadership positions. Yearly trends were analyzed and compared between the conferences and in aggregate. RESULTS AAO-HNSF had available scientific programs from 2012-2017, while TS and TS-COSM had programs available from 2003-2018. Across all conferences and years, 16.9% of recorded opportunities were occupied by women, with an upward trend from 2005 to 2018. Program committees had the highest proportion of women (21.4%) and presidential citation and guest of honor recipients had the lowest (9.1%). Of all panels, 87.5% did not have any women panelists in 2003, but by 2018 only 24.0% panels were male-only. There was marked repetition among women occupying roles, with only 423 unique women occupying a total of 1,733 filled spots. CONCLUSION Measured representation of women in academic otolaryngology conferences has improved from 2003-2018. Despite this improvement, gender disparity still exists. LEVEL OF EVIDENCE 5 Laryngoscope, 131:E373-E379, 2021.

Objective To describe the characteristics of obstetrical and gynecological randomized clinical trials (RCTs) that were registered at a national database, and to identify factors associated with the publication among the completed trials. Study Design This was a cross-sectional study using data from ClinicalTrials.gov which was queried for all obstetrical and gynecological RCTs that were registered between January 1, 2009 and December 31, 2013. Poisson regression models were used to examine the factors associated with publication among the completed trials (using relative risk [RR] and 95 % confidence interval [CI]). Results During the 5-year study period, 1389 obstetrical and gynecological RCTs were registered at ClinicalTrials.gov: 31 % (n = 538) in obstetrics and 69 % (n = 851) in gynecology. Among all registered RCTs in obstetrics-gynecology, 59 % (n = 816) were completed and 29 % (n = 406) were published. Compared to registered trials that were unpublished, those that were published were more likely to be funded by NIH/US Federal Government (RR = 3.36, 95 % CI = 1.46−7.74) or other non-industry organizations (RR = 2.41, 95 % CI = 1.07−5.38), have a procedural intervention (RR = 1.52, 95 % CI = 1.12−2.06), or an enrollment of >150 (RR = 2.73, 95 % CI = 1.57−4.75). Conclusion Among the obstetrical and gynecological randomized controlled trials registered at ClinicalTrials.gov, less than two-third were completed, and only one-third were published.

Writing a successful grant or other funding applications is a requirement for continued employment, promotion, and tenure among nursing faculty and researchers. Writing successful applications is a challenging task, with often uncertain results. The inability to secure funding not only threatens the ability of nurse researchers to conduct relevant health care research but may also negatively impact their career trajectories. Many individuals and organizations have offered advice for improving success with funding applications. While helpful, those recommendations are common knowledge and simply form the basis of any well-considered, well-formulated, and well-written application. For nurse researchers interested in taking advantage of innovative computational methods and leading-edge analytical techniques, we propose adding the results from computer-based simulation modeling experiments to funding applications. By first conducting a research study in a virtual space, nurse researchers can refine their study design, test various assumptions, conduct experiments, and better determine which elements, variables, and parameters are necessary to answer their research question. In short, simulation modeling is a learning tool, and the modeling process helps nurse researchers gain additional insights that can be applied in their real-world research and used to strengthen funding applications. Simulation modeling is well-suited for answering quantitative research questions. Still, the design of these models can benefit significantly from the addition of qualitative data and can be helpful when simulating the results of mixed methods studies. We believe this is a promising strategy for improving success rates with funding applications, especially among nurse researchers interested in contributing new knowledge supporting the paradigm shift in nursing resulting from advances in computational science and information technology.

BACKGROUND United States Medical Licensing Exam (USMLE) Step I score is cited as one of the most important factors when for applying to neurosurgery residencies. No studies have documented a correlation between USMLE Step I score and metrics of neurosurgical career trajectory beyond residency. OBJECTIVE To determine whether USMLE Step I exam scores are predictive of neurosurgical career beyond residency, as defined by American Board of Neurological Surgery (ABNS) certification status, practice type, academic rank, and research productivity. METHODS A database of neurosurgery residency applicants who matched into neurosurgery from 1997 to 2007 was utilized that included USMLE Step I score. Online databases were used to determine h-index, National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant funding, academic rank, practice type, and ABNS certification status of each applicant. Linear regression and nonparametric testing determined associations between USMLE Step I scores and these variables. RESULTS USMLE Step I scores were higher for neurosurgeons in academic positions (237) when compared to community practice (234) and non-neurosurgeons (233, P

The first annual Stroke Translational Research Advancement Workshop (STRAW), entitled "Uncovering the Rosetta Stone: Key Elements in Translating Stroke Therapeutics from Pre-Clinical to Clinical" was held at the University of Kentucky on October 4-5, 2017. This workshop was organized by the Center for Advanced Translational Stroke Science. The workshop consisted of 2days of activities. These included three presentations establishing the areas of research in stroke therapeutics, discussing the routes for translation from bench to bedside, and identifying successes and failures in the field. On day 2, grant funding opportunities and goals for the National Institute for Neurological Diseases and Stroke were presented. In addition, the meeting also included break-out sessions designed to connect researchers in areas of stroke, and to foster potential collaborations. Finally, the meeting concluded with an open discussion among attendees led by a panel of experts.