NIH Career Development Awards: conversion to research grants and regional distribution.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Conte ML
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6264617 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Dec
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
NIH Career Development Awards: conversion to research grants and regional distribution.
Conte Marisa L ML Omary M Bishr MB
The Journal of clinical investigation 20181029 12
Similar Datasets
Project description:We investigated the association between a U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) R01 applicant's self-identified race or ethnicity and the probability of receiving an award by using data from the NIH IMPAC II grant database, the Thomson Reuters Web of Science, and other sources. Although proposals with strong priority scores were equally likely to be funded regardless of race, we find that Asians are 4 percentage points and black or African-American applicants are 13 percentage points less likely to receive NIH investigator-initiated research funding compared with whites. After controlling for the applicant's educational background, country of origin, training, previous research awards, publication record, and employer characteristics, we find that black applicants remain 10 percentage points less likely than whites to be awarded NIH research funding. Our results suggest some leverage points for policy intervention.
| S-EPMC3412416 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Many postdoctoral fellows and scholars who hope to secure tenure-track faculty positions in the United States apply to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for a Pathway to Independence Award. This award has two phases (K99 and R00) and provides funding for up to 5 years. Using NIH data for the period 2006-2022, we report that ~230 K99 awards were made every year, representing up to ~$250 million annual investment. About 40% of K99 awardees were women and ~89% of K99 awardees went on to receive an R00 award annually. Institutions with the most NIH funding produced the most recipients of K99 awards and recruited the most recipients of R00 awards. The time between a researcher starting an R00 award and receiving a major NIH award (such as an R01) ranged between 4.6 and 7.4 years, and was significantly longer for women, for those who remained at their home institution, and for those hired by an institution that was not one of the 25 institutions with the most NIH funding. Shockingly, there has yet to be a K99 awardee at a historically Black college or university. We go on to show how K99 awardees flow to faculty positions, and to identify various factors that influence the future success of individual researchers and, therefore, also influence the composition of biomedical faculty at universities in the United States.
| S-EPMC10945599 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThe primary individual research career development awards for emergency medicine (EM) investigators are the K08 and K23 awards. To the best of the authors' knowledge, postaward productivity of EM K08 and K23 awardees has not been previously described. The objectives were to describe EM researchers who have received K08 or K23 awards and to evaluate their postaward federal funding and publications.MethodsThis was a cross-sectional study, conducted during January 2012, of clinician-scientists who previously completed EM residency or fellowship programs and have received K08 or K23 awards from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) or Agency for Healthcare Research and Quality (AHRQ) between fiscal years 2000 through 2011. Awardees were identified through the NIH reporting tool (NIH RePORTER). Postaward funding was abstracted, including R01-equivalent funding for K awardees who completed their K training by the end of the 2011 fiscal year. Postaward publications (with journal impact factor) were tabulated for all K awardees using PubMed and Journal Citation Reports. An e-mail survey was also conducted during September and October 2012 to describe the awardee characteristics (demographics and research background) of all EM K awardees using REDCap electronic data captures tools. Simple descriptive statistics are reported.ResultsSixty-three EM awardees were identified; 24 (38%) were K08 awardees, and 39 (62%) were K23 awardees. Of the 38 (60%) awardees who completed their K training, 16 (42%) obtained subsequent federal funding, with six (16%) obtaining R01 funding (median time from end of K award to R01 award was 4.5 years). Overall, EM awardees published a mean (±SD) of 4.0 (±1.3) manuscripts per year (after the start of their K awards); the mean (±SD) impact factor of the journals in which these manuscripts were published was 4.5 (±5.7). Forty-five (71%) of EM K awardees responded to the survey. Respondents had a median age of 36 years (interquartile range [IQR] = 35 to 38 years), and 33 were male (73%). The median time from completion of residency to start of the K award was 6 years (IQR = 4 to 7 years), with 27 (60%) completing a research fellowship prior to the K award.ConclusionsOver 40% of EM K awardees who completed their career development training subsequently obtained federal funding as principal investigator (PI) or co-PI, while approximately one in six obtained R01 equivalent funding. Given the numerous barriers facing emergency care researchers, EM K awardees demonstrate good postaward productivity.
| S-EPMC3690923 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This research expands efforts to understand differences in NIH funding associated with the self-identified race and ethnicity of applicants. We collected data from 2,397 NIH Biographical Sketches submitted between FY 2003 and 2006 as part of new NIH R01 Type 1 applications to obtain detailed information on the applicants' training and scholarly activities, including publications. Using these data, we examined the association between an NIH R01 applicant's race or ethnicity and the probability of receiving an R01 award. The applicant's publication history as reported in the NIH biographical sketch and the associated bibliometrics narrowed the black/white funding gap for new and experienced investigators in explanatory models. We found that black applicants reported fewer papers on their Biosketches, had fewer citations, and those that were reported appeared in journals with lower impact factors. Incorporating these measures in our models explained a substantial portion of the black/white funding gap. Although these predictors influence the funding gap, they do not fully address race/ethnicity differences in receiving a priority score.
| S-EPMC6235266 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceInvesting in the next generation of researchers is essential, as recently highlighted in the 21st Century Cures Act. From its inception, the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) has supported training and career development to ensure a robust pipeline of investigators who are prepared to lead their respective fields of inquiry. In recent years, the NICHD has emphasized institutional over individual training awards to a greater degree than many other National Institutes of Health institutes of similar size.ObjectiveTo evaluate the success of individuals supported by NICHD career development and training awards, as measured by subsequent application and receipt of independent National Institutes of Health research project grant funding.Design, setting, and participantsThis retrospective cohort study identified 417 physician-scholars who were supported by NICHD career development awards between October 1, 1999, and September 30, 2001. This period was selected to allow adequate follow-up of research project grant applications and funding. Among these physician-scholars, 355 met inclusion criteria.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcomes were the numbers of research project grant applications submitted and, of these, the numbers that were successfully funded.ResultsAmong 355 physician-scientists, scholars who had an MD degree only and received a K award or both an individual K award and institutional K12 support were more likely than those who received only K12 support (individual K only vs institutional K12 only: odds ratio [OR], 4.86; 95% CI, 1.83-13.62; both K and K12 vs K12 only: OR, 3.19; 95% CI, 1.46-7.10) to apply for subsequent project grant funding (88.0% vs 82.8% vs 60.1%, respectively; P < .001) and to receive it (60.0% vs 60.9% vs 32.9%, respectively; P < .001). For physicians with both MD and PhD degrees, neither application nor funding rates were statistically significantly different whether their career development was supported by individual or institutional awards.Conclusions and relevancePhysician-scholars are more likely to apply for and receive a National Institutes of Health research grant if they are trained on an individual career development award, with or without an institutional training award. Based on the data, the NICHD intends to provide a greater proportion of its career development fund allocation to individual awards. The NICHD recognizes the importance of institutional awards and will continue to support them. The NICHD remains committed to training and intends to maintain its investment in training and career development awards going forward.
| S-EPMC5885850 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The National Cancer Institute (NCI) career development (K) awards program supports investigators to develop their cancer research programs and achieve independence. The NCI Center for Cancer Training conducted a K program evaluation by analyzing outcomes of awardees and individuals who applied to the program but were not funded. The evaluation covered seven NCI mechanisms (K01, K07, K08, K11, K22, K23, and K25) between 1980 and 2008. Descriptive statistics and regression modeling were performed on the full cohort (n = 2,893 individuals, 4,081 K applications) and a comparison cohort described herein. K awardees proportionately received more subsequent NIH grants and authored more publications, and time to first R01 grant was unaffected. Of those not pursuing research, K awardees were more likely to participate in activities signaling continued scientific engagement. The NCI K program had a positive impact, not only on participants' biomedical research careers but also on achieving outcomes significant to the scientific enterprise.
| S-EPMC3608862 | biostudies-literature
Project description: Not available
| S-EPMC7526437 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The National Institutes of Health (NIH) K18 award mechanism provides funded opportunities for established investigators to gain knowledge in fields outside of their primary disciplines, but outcomes associated with these awards have not been evaluated to date. NIH's Basic Behavioral and Social Sciences Opportunity Network (OppNet) is one of the few initiatives that has used this award mechanism. We explored how the unique features of K18 awards affect the ability of recipients to obtain follow-on NIH research funding. We compared outcomes (ability to obtain follow-on funding and interval between receipt of the primary award and receipt of the first follow-on award) associated with OppNet K18 awards to findings from evaluations of other NIH career development (K) awards, which usually target early-career investigators. We hypothesized that K18 award recipients might be (1) more successful than are other K award recipients in obtaining follow-on NIH research funding due to their career experience or (2) less successful due to the competing demands of other projects. By analyzing follow-on NIH research awards and interview data, we found that OppNet K18 award recipients were at least as successful as were other K award recipients in obtaining follow-on funding and may have been more successful by certain measures. K18 awards produce their outcomes with a lower investment per investigator than do other K awards, suggesting continued or enhanced use of the mechanism.
| S-EPMC5810999 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveFor psychiatry research resident career development, there is a recognized need for improved cross-institutional mentoring and networking opportunities. One method to address this need is via regional conferences, open to current and recently graduated research residents and their mentors. With this in mind, we developed the biennial California Psychiatry Research Resident Retreat (CPRRR) and collected feedback from participants to 1) Assess resident satisfaction, 2) Determine the utility of the retreat as a networking and mentorship tool, and 3) Identify areas for improvement.MethodsWe gathered survey data from resident attendees at the two first CPRRRs. We analyzed the data to look for trends in satisfaction as well as areas that need improvement.ResultsThirty-two residents from five California training programs attended the CPRRR in 2013 while 33 attended from six programs in 2015. The residents were from all years of training, but concentrated in their second and third years. Approximately 41% and 49% of the attendees were female and 53% and 39% had an MD/PhD in 2013 and 2015, respectively. Twenty-four and 32 residents provided anonymous feedback in 2013 and 2015, respectively. Mean feedback scores were very high (> 4/5) for overall satisfaction, peer- and faculty-networking, the keynote speaker and the flash talks for both years. Mean feedback scores for the ethics debates and mentoring sessions were somewhat lower (≤ 4/5), however, both showed significant improvement from 2013 to 2015.ConclusionThe CPRRRs appear to be an effective mechanism for providing psychiatry research residents with a meaningful cross-institutional opportunity for networking and mentorship. Feedback-driven changes to the CPRRRs improved participant satisfaction for several components of the conference. Future efforts will be aimed at broadening mentorship and networking opportunities, optimizing teaching approaches for research ethics, and considering different feedback-gathering approaches to allow for improved longitudinal follow-up and subgroup analysis.
| S-EPMC5107358 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Statistical principles and methods are critical to the success of biomedical and translational research. However, it is difficult to track and evaluate the monetary value of a biostatistician to a medical school (SoM). Limited published data on this topic is available, especially comparing across SoMs. Using National Institutes of Health (NIH) awards and American Association of Medical Colleges (AAMC) faculty counts data (2010-2013), together with online information on biostatistics faculty from 119 institutions across the country, we demonstrated that the number of biostatistics faculty was significantly positively associated with the amount of NIH awards, both as a school total and on a per faculty basis, across various sizes of U.S. SoMs. Biostatisticians, as a profession, need to be proactive in communicating and advocating the value of their work and their unique contribution to the long-term success of a biomedical research enterprise.
| S-EPMC4386754 | biostudies-literature