Trends in the Use of Promotional Language (Hype) in National Institutes of Health Funding Opportunity Announcements, 1992-2020.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Millar N
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9679874 | biostudies-literature | 2022 Nov
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Trends in the Use of Promotional Language (Hype) in National Institutes of Health Funding Opportunity Announcements, 1992-2020.
Millar Neil N Batalo Bojan B Budgell Brian B
JAMA network open 20221101 11
Similar Datasets
Project description:ImportanceThe integrity of the grant application process is important to the success of the entire research enterprise. However, little information is available concerning the prevalence and evolution of subjective or promotional language ("hype") that has the potential to undermine objectivity in the writing and evaluation of grant applications.ObjectiveTo assess changes over time in the use of hype in abstracts of National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant applications.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study assessed the prevalence of promotional adjectives in abstracts in the NIH archive from 1985 to 2020.Main outcomes and measuresFrom all abstracts in the NIH RePORTER (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools: Expenditures and Results) archive, adjectives were automatically extracted, and their frequencies in the most recent year (2020) were assessed relative to the start year (1985). Adjectives that shifted significantly in frequency and that carried a promotional sense (ie, hype) were retained, and patterns of change were assessed by plotting yearly frequencies (1985-2020). By grouping the adjectives based on shared semantic properties, broad meanings commonly expressed by hype were identified. Absolute change was measured as the difference in normalized frequency between 1985 and 2020. Relative change was measured as the percentage change in normalized frequency in 2020 relative to 1985, or the first year of occurrence.ResultsIn total, 901 717 abstracts were analyzed and 139 adjective forms were identified as hype. Among these 139 adjective forms, 130 hype adjectives increased in frequency by 7690 words per million (wpm) (mean [SD] relative increase, 1378% [3132%]), while 9 hype adjectives decreased in frequency by 686 wpm (mean [SD] relative decrease, 44% [18%]). The largest absolute increases were for the terms novel (1054 wpm), critical (555 wpm), and key (461 wpm), while the largest relative increases were for the terms sustainable (25 157%), actionable (16 114%), and scalable (13 029%). Hype most often serves to promote the significance, novelty, scale, and rigor of a project; the utility of the expected outcomes; the qualities of the investigators and research environment; and the gravity of the problem; as well as conveying the personal attitudes of the applicants.Conclusions and relevanceLevels of hype in successful NIH grant applications have increased over time from 1985 to 2020. The findings in this study should serve to sensitize applicants, reviewers, and funding agencies to the increasing prevalence of subjective, promotional language in funding applications.
| S-EPMC9412227 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceInvestigators applying for National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding increasingly use promotional language (or hype) that has the potential to undermine objective evaluation. Whether or not the same investigators use hype in subsequent research reports has yet to be investigated.ObjectiveTo assess changes in the use of hype in journal abstracts reporting research funded by the NIH and to compare those trends with previously reported trends in the associated NIH funding applications.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study assessed trends (from 1985 to 2020) in the use of promotional adjectives in abstracts of journal articles reporting NIH-funded research, and then compared those trends with previously reported trends for the associated NIH funding applications. Articles included in analyses had abstracts available in PubMed.Main outcomes and measuresAbsolute change for the 139 adjective forms that have previously been identified as representing hype in NIH funding applications was measured as the difference in frequency between 1985 and 2020. Relative change was measured as the percentage change in frequency in 2020 relative to 1985, or the first year of occurrence. Consistency of change was measured by the rank order correlation (Kendall τ). Concordance between longitudinal trends in the journal abstracts and NIH funding applications was measured by the rank-order cross-correlation.ResultsIn a total of 2 394 480 journal abstracts, all 139 adjective forms were identified in 2 793 592 total occurrences. Among these adjectives, 133 increased in absolute frequency by 5335 words per million (wpm), with a mean (SD) relative increase of 1404% (2371%). The largest absolute increases were for novel (524 wpm), important (414 wpm), and key (378 wpm). The largest relative increases were for scalable (22 wpm [19 964%]), unmet (23 wpm [12 126%]), and tailored (40 wpm [8169%]). The mean (SD) correlation for all adjectives was 0.70 (0.30) with 95 adjectives showing a strong positive correlation (τ > 0.7; P < .001), 24 a moderate positive correlation (0.5 < τ < 0.7; P < .001), and 3 a moderate negative correlation (-0.5 < τ < -0.7; P < .001). The mean (SD) cross-correlation was 0.64 (0.19) with 61 of the 139 adjectives showing a strong positive cross-correlations (τ > 0.7; P < .001), 53 a moderate positive cross-correlations (0.5 < τ < 0.7; P < .001), and 3 a moderate negative cross-correlation (-0.7 < τ < -0.5; P < .001).Conclusions and relevanceIn this analysis of journal abstracts reporting NIH-funded research from 1985 to 2020, levels of promotional language were found to be increasing and trends were closely associated with previously reported trends in the related NIH funding applications. This suggests that increasing levels of salesmanship may in part be a downstream effect of salesmanship infused during earlier stages of the research cascade.
| S-EPMC10739072 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe purpose of this study is to compare the compositions of federally funded surgical research between 2003 and 2013, and to assess differences in funding trends between surgery and other medical specialties.Data sourcesThe National Institutes of Health (NIH) Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool database was queried for grants within core surgical disciplines during 2003 and 2013. Funding was categorized by award type, methodology, and discipline. Application success rates for surgery and 5 nonsurgical departments were trended over time.ConclusionsInflation-adjusted NIH funding for surgical research decreased 19% from $270 M in 2003 to $219 M in 2013, with a shift from R-awards to U-awards. Proportional funding to outcomes research almost tripled, while translational research diminished. Nonsurgical departments have increased NIH application volume over the last 10 years; however, surgery's application volume has been stagnant. To preserve surgery's role in innovative research, new efforts are needed to incentivize an increase in application volume.
| S-EPMC4446185 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceThe US has historically resettled more refugees than any other country, with over 3.5 million refugees since 1980. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the largest public funder of biomedical research and development, but its role in mitigating many health disparities refugees experience through its funded research remains unknown.ObjectiveTo examine the NIH's research funding patterns on refugee health research over the last 2 decades.Design, setting, and participantsSecondary analysis of NIH-funded grants between 2000 and 2020 using a cross-sectional study design. The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools database was used to find relevant grants. Data were analyzed from November 2021 to September 2022.Main outcomes and measuresNIH grants awarded by year, state, grant type, research area, funding institute, grant duration, and amount funded.ResultsOf 1.7 million NIH grants funded over the 20-year study period, only 78 addressed refugee health. Funded grants were mostly training grants (23 grants [29%]), followed by hypothesis-driven research (R01 grants; 22 grants [28%]), pilot or preliminary investigation proposals (13 grants [17%]), and other types of grants (20 grants [26%]). The most studied research domain was mental health (36 grants [46%]), followed by refugee family dynamics and women's and children's health (14 grants [18%]). A total of 26 grants (33%) were funded by the National Institute of Mental Health and 15 (19%) were funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Most grants were US-based (60 grants [76%]) and the state of Massachusetts received the greatest amount of funding ($14 825 852 [18%]). In 2020, the NIH allocated about $2.3 million to refugee health research, or less than 0.01% of its $42 billion budget that year. The number of grants funded in each time period did not always reflect changes in the number of refugees resettled in the US over the years.Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional study found that there remain significant gaps in the understanding of and interventions in the health research needs of refugees locally and along the migratory route. To close these gaps, the NIH should increase its investments in comprehensive studies assessing the physical, mental, and social well-being of this expanding population. This can be achieved by ensuring that all NIH institutes allocate budgets specifically for refugee health research and extend support for the training of refugee researchers.
| S-EPMC10782235 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceSurgical diseases account for approximately 30% of the global burden of disease. Gender diversity in biomedical research is critical to generate innovative patient-centered research in surgery.ObjectiveTo examine the distribution of biomedical research funding by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) among women and men surgeon-scientists during a 25-year period.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study used publicly available data from the NIH RePORTER (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools: Expenditures and Results) database for research project grants awarded to women and men surgeon-scientists who were principal investigators between 1995 and 2020. Data were retrieved between January 20 and March 20, 2022. The representation of women surgeon-scientists among academic surgeons was compared with the representation of men surgeon-scientists over time.Main outcomes and measuresDistribution of NIH funding to women and men surgeon-scientists was examined via 2 metrics: holding a large-dollar (ie, R01-equivalent) grant and being a super principal investigator (SPI) with $750 000 or more in total annual research funding. Statistical analysis was performed between April 1 and August 31, 2022.ResultsBetween 1995 and 2020, 2078 principal investigator surgeons received funding from the NIH. The proportion of women academic surgeons who were surgeon-scientists remained unchanged during this same period (1995, 14 of 792 [1.8%] vs 2020, 92 of 3834 [2.4%]; P = .10). Compared with their men counterparts, women surgeon-scientists obtained their first NIH grant earlier in their career (mean [SD] years after first faculty appointment, 8.8 [6.2] vs 10.8 [7.9] years; P < .001) and were as likely to obtain large-dollar grants (aRR, 0.99 [95% CI, 0.95-1.03]) during the period 2016 to 2020. Despite this success, women surgeon-scientists remained significantly underrepresented among SPIs and were 25% less likely to be an SPI (aRR, 0.75 [95% CI, 0.60-0.95] during the period 2016 to 2020).Conclusions and relevanceThe findings of this cross-sectional study of NIH-funded surgeons suggest that women surgeons remained underrepresented among surgeon-scientists over a 25-year period despite early career success in receiving NIH funding. This is concerning and warrants further investigation to increase the distribution of NIH funding among women surgeon-scientists.
| S-EPMC10028489 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ImportanceEarly-stage and established investigators compete for a limited supply of funds from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Regardless of their previous funding success, many principal investigators (PIs) encounter a funding gap in which they no longer receive ongoing funding from the NIH.ObjectiveTo determine incidence rates of PI-level funding gaps, the mean funding gap length, and whether these 2 metrics are associated with previous funding success.Design, setting, and participantsThis study was conducted using data from NIH RePORTER. Historical datafiles for fiscal year (FY) 2011 to FY 2021 were aggregated to generate 2 master datafiles for this period: all NIH awards and only R01 awards. PIs with no funding in FY 2011 or FY 2021 were removed. PIs were sorted by FY 2011 total funding amounts and grouped by quarter of amount.ResultsA total of 39 944 unique researchers were awarded 220 131 NIH awards, of which 103 753 were R01 awards. For all NIH awards, there was an overall linear increase from top quarter to bottom quarter in the percentage of PIs who had at least 1 year without funding (from 27% to 75%), percentage of these gap PIs who had at least 2 consecutive years without funding (from 56% to 68%), and mean maximum consecutive years without funding for gap PIs (2.2 years to 3.1 years). For only R01 awards, there was an overall linear increase from top quarter to bottom quarter in the percentage of PIs who had at least 1 year without funding (50% to 74%), percentage of gap PIs who had at least 2 consecutive years without funding (59% to 71%), and mean maximum consecutive years without funding for gap PIs (2.4 years to 3.1 years).Conclusions and relevanceIn this cohort study of NIH-funded investigators, PIs with higher NIH funding were less likely to experience a funding gap. Additionally, when these PIs encountered a funding gap, this period without funding was shorter; however, among all PIs, funding gaps typically lasted 2 to 3 years. These associations were found inclusive of all NIH awards and when analysis was limited to only R01 awards. These findings may be useful to PIs and academic institutions as they prepare, structure, and project research resource allocations.
| S-EPMC10509726 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Following initial regulatory approval of prescription drugs, many factors may influence insurers and health systems when they decide whether to add these drugs to their formularies. The role of political pressures on drug funding announcements has received relatively little attention, and elections represent an especially powerful form of political pressure. We examined the temporal relationship between decisions to add one class of drugs to publicly funded formularies in Canada's ten provinces and elections in these jurisdictions.Dates of provincial formulary listings for cholinesterase inhibitors, which are drugs used to treat Alzheimer's disease and related dementias, were compared to the dates of provincial elections. Medical journal articles, media reports, and proceedings from provincial legislatures were reviewed to assemble information on the chronology of events. We tested whether there was a statistically significant increase in the probability of drug funding announcements within the 60-day intervals preceding provincial elections.Decisions to fund the cholinesterase inhibitors were made over a nine-year span from 1999 to 2007 in the ten provinces. In four of ten provinces, the drugs were added to formularies in a time period closely preceding a provincial election (P?=?0.032); funding announcements in these provinces were made between 2 and 47 days prior to elections. Statements made in provincial legislatures highlight the key role of political pressures in these funding announcements.Impending elections appeared to affect the timing of drug funding announcements in this case study. Despite an established structure for evidence-based decision-making, drug funding remains a complex process open to influence from many sources. Awareness of such influences is critical to maintain effective drug policy and public health decision-making.
| S-EPMC3584056 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PurposeThe 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.DesignSecondary analysis of NIH data.SettingNational Institutes of Health Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool database was used.SubjectsNational Institutes of Health tobacco-related awards newly funded during FY2006 and FY2016.MeasuresSearch terms included tobacco, smoking, nicotine, secondhand smoke, and e-cigarettes. Grants and funding amounts were retrieved.AnalysisWe 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.ResultsThere 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%.ConclusionNIH funding is critical for advancing the science of nicotine and tobacco research.
| S-EPMC6026566 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo determine trends in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for cardiac surgeons, hypothesizing they are at a disadvantage in obtaining funding owing to intensive clinical demands.MethodsCardiac surgeons (adult/congenital) currently at the top 141 NIH-funded institutions were identified using institutional websites. The NIH funding history for each cardiac surgeon was queried using the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER). Total grant funding, publications, and type was collected. Academic rank, secondary degrees, and fellowship information was collected from faculty pages. Grant productivity was calculated using a validated grant impact metric.ResultsA total of 818 academic cardiac surgeons were identified, of whom 144 obtained 293 NIH grants totaling $458 million and resulting in 6694 publications. We identified strong associations between an institution's overall NIH funding rank and the number of cardiac surgeons, NIH grants to cardiac surgeons, and amount of NIH funding to cardiac surgeons (P < .0001 for all). The majority of NIH funding to cardiac surgeons is concentrated in the top quartile of institutions. Cardiac surgeons had a high conversion rates from K awards (mentored development awards) to R01s (6 of 14; 42.9%). Finally, we demonstrate that the rate of all NIH grants awarded to cardiac surgeons has increased, driven primarily by P and U (collaborative project) grants.ConclusionsNIH-funded cardiac surgical research has had a significant impact over the last 3 decades. Aspiring cardiac surgeon-scientists may be more successful at top quartile institutions owing to better infrastructure and mentorship.
| S-EPMC7546359 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Background: The National Nutrition Research Roadmap has called for support of greater collaborative, interdisciplinary research for multiple areas of nutrition research. However, a substantial reduction in federal funding makes responding to these calls challenging. Objectives: The objectives of this study were to examine temporal trends in research funding and to discuss the potential consequences of these trends. Methods: We searched the NIH RePORTER database to identify NIH research grants and USASpending to identify National Science Foundation and USDA research grants awarded from 1992 to 2015. We focused on those that pertained to vitamin research. For the years 2000 to 2015, we examined funding trends for different vitamins, including vitamins A, B (one-carbon B-vitamins were considered separately from other B-vitamins), C, D, E, and K. Results: From 1992 to 2015, total federal research spending increased from ∼$14 to $45 billion (2016 US dollars). Although vitamin research spending increased from ∼$89 to $95 million, the proportion of grants awarded for vitamin research declined by more than two-thirds, from 0.65% in 1992 to 0.2% in 2015. Federal agencies awarded 6035 vitamin research grants over the time period, with vitamin A associated with the most research projects per year on average (n = 115) and vitamin K the fewest (n = 8). Vitamin D research projects were associated with the greatest average yearly project value ($34.8 million). Conclusions: Vitamin research has faced a disproportionate decline in research funding from 1992 to 2015. Insufficient federal research funding streams risk stalling progress in vitamin research and leaving important advancements unrealized.
| S-EPMC5998363 | biostudies-literature