Dataset Information

The impact of funding deadlines on personal workloads, stress and family relationships: a qualitative study of Australian researchers.

ABSTRACT: To examine the impact of applying for funding on personal workloads, stress and family relationships.Qualitative study of researchers preparing grant proposals.Web-based survey on applying for the annual National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Project Grant scheme.Australian researchers (n=215).Almost all agreed that preparing their proposals always took top priority over other work (97%) and personal (87%) commitments. Almost all researchers agreed that they became stressed by the workload (93%) and restricted their holidays during the grant writing season (88%). Most researchers agreed that they submitted proposals because chance is involved in being successful (75%), due to performance requirements at their institution (60%) and pressure from their colleagues to submit proposals (53%). Almost all researchers supported changes to the current processes to submit proposals (95%) and peer review (90%). Most researchers (59%) provided extensive comments on the impact of writing proposals on their work life and home life. Six major work life themes were: (1) top priority; (2) career development; (3) stress at work; (4) benefits at work; (5) time spent at work and (6) pressure from colleagues. Six major home life themes were: (1) restricting family holidays; (2) time spent on work at home; (3) impact on children; (4) stress at home; (5) impact on family and friends and (6) impact on partner. Additional impacts on the mental health and well-being of researchers were identified.The process of preparing grant proposals for a single annual deadline is stressful, time consuming and conflicts with family responsibilities. The timing of the funding cycle could be shifted to minimise applicant burden, give Australian researchers more time to work on actual research and to be with their families.

SUBMITTER: Herbert DL

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3975760 | biostudies-literature | 2014

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

The impact of funding deadlines on personal workloads, stress and family relationships: a qualitative study of Australian researchers.

Herbert Danielle L DL Coveney John J Clarke Philip P Graves Nicholas N Barnett Adrian G AG

BMJ open 20140328 3

<h4>Objective</h4>To examine the impact of applying for funding on personal workloads, stress and family relationships.<h4>Design</h4>Qualitative study of researchers preparing grant proposals.<h4>Setting</h4>Web-based survey on applying for the annual National Health and Medical Research Council (NHMRC) Project Grant scheme.<h4>Participants</h4>Australian researchers (n=215).<h4>Results</h4>Almost all agreed that preparing their proposals always took top priority over other work (97%) and perso ...[more]

PMID: 24682577

Similar Datasets

Project description:ImportanceBoth citation and funding metrics converge in shaping current perceptions of academic success.ObjectiveTo evaluate what proportion of the most-cited US-based scientists are funded by biomedical federal agencies and whether funded scientists are more cited than nonfunded ones.Design, setting, and participantsThis survey study used linkage of a Scopus-based database on top-cited US researchers (according to a composite citation metric) and the National Institutes of Health RePORTER database of federal funding (33 biomedical federal agencies). Matching was based on name and institution. US-based top-cited scientists who were allocated to any of 69 scientific subfields highly related to biomedicine were considered in the main analysis. Data were downloaded on June 11, 2022.Main outcomes and measuresProportion of US-based top-cited biomedical scientists who had any (1996-2022), recent (2015-2022), and current (2021-2022) funding. Comparisons of funded and nonfunded scientists assessed total citations and a composite citation index.ResultsThere were 204 603 records in RePORTER (1996-2022) and 75 316 US-based top-cited scientists in the career-long citation database; 40 887 scientists were included in the main analysis. The proportion of US-based top-cited biomedical scientists (according to career-long citation impact) who had received any federal funding from biomedical research agencies was 62.7% (25 650 of 40 887) for any funding (1996-2022), 23.1% (9427 of 40 887) for recent funding (2015-2022), and 14.1% (5778 of 40 887) for current funding (2021-2022). Respective proportions were 64.8%, 31.4%, and 20.9%, for top-cited scientists according to recent single-year citation impact. There was large variability across scientific subfields (eg, current funding: 31% of career-long impact top-cited scientists in geriatrics, 30% in bioinformatics and 29% in developmental biology, but 0% in legal and forensic medicine, general psychology and cognitive sciences, and gender studies). Funded top-cited researchers were overall more cited than nonfunded top-cited scientists (median [IQR], 9594 [5650-1703] vs 5352 [3057-9890] citations; P < .001) and substantial difference remained after adjusting for subfield and years since first publication. Differences were more prominent in some specific biomedical subfields.Conclusions and relevanceIn this survey study, biomedical federal funding had offered support to approximately two-thirds of the top-cited biomedical scientists at some point during the last quarter century, but only a small minority of top-cited scientists had current federal biomedical funding. The large unevenness across subfields needs to be addressed with ways that improve equity, efficiency, excellence, and translational potential.

Project description:BackgroundCurrent perceptions of family physician (FP) shortages in Canada have prompted policies to expand medical schools. Our objective was to assess how FP supply, workloads and access to care have changed over the past decade.MethodsWe used an anonymized physician and population registry and administrative health service data from Winnipeg for the period 1991/92 to 2000/01. We calculated the following measures of supply and workload: ratios of FPs to population, of population to FPs and of FP full-time equivalents (FTEs) to population, as well as FP activity ratios (sum of FTEs/number of FPs), annual number of visits per FP and visits per FP per full-time day of work. Trends in FP remuneration were analyzed by age and sex. We also measured standardized visit rates and stratified the analysis by populations deemed at risk of needing FP services.ResultsIn 2000/01 FPs between 30 and 49 years of age (64% of the workforce) provided 20% fewer visits per year than their same-age peers did 10 years previously. Conversely, FPs 60 to 69 years of age (11% of the workforce) provided 33% more visits per year than the corresponding group a decade earlier. On a per capita basis, the number of FPs declined by 5%, from 97 per 100 000 population in 1991/92 to 92 per 100 000 population in 2000/01, which paralleled changes in national estimates of FP supply. Per capita visit rates among Winnipeg citizens (3.5 per year in 2000/01) and average workloads among FPs (4193 visits per year in 2000/01) were stable over the decade.InterpretationDespite relative homeostasis in aggregate FP supply and use, there have been substantial temporal shifts in the volume of services provided by FPs of different age groups. Younger FPs are providing many fewer visits and older FPs are providing many more visits than their same-age predecessors did 10 years ago, a finding that was independent of physician sex. Given these data, the perpetual focus of policy-makers and care providers on increasing numbers of FPs will not help in diagnosing or treating issues of supply, workloads and access to care.

Project description:Background: The challenge of research funding constraints has brought to bear enormous pressure on researchers. Research productivity is relevant to prestige and career progression of academic staff. However, this study aimed to explore significant challenges associated with researchers' productivity and the impact of non-funding of research in Nigerian research and tertiary institutions. Methods: This study adopted a qualitative exploratory design involving academics at various research and tertiary institutions across the six geographical regions in Nigeria. A semi-structured questionnaire was distributed electronically to all participants who consented to take part in this study. Exactly 4,159 questionnaires were administered and 2,350 were completely filled and returned. Pearson correlation matrices with logistic regression were used for data analysis and are presented in frequencies and percentages. Results: On challenges faced by respondents, 42.98% reported a lack of research funding, 17.11% mentioned brain drain challenge while 8.85% indicated a lack of motivation. Of the 23,927 publications reported, the number of those in sciences, engineering, and medical sciences averaged 9.6, 11.5, and 9.5 respectively. The average number of publications by women (10.8) was more than by men (9.7). Lecturers had the highest average research publication number (11.8) followed by researchers (10.2) and others (3.9). Men had the highest (11.9) average number of conferences compared to women (9.2). Participants in engineering had an average number of 13.8 conferences per respondents followed by those in education (11.2), sciences (11.1), and 10.9 for those in agricultural sciences. The result revealed a negative significant correlation between research publication and academic qualification at p < 0.01. Positive significant correlation was observed between research productivity and discipline at p < 0.05. Findings show that the combined influence of the independent variables on research productivity was significant using linear regression analysis. Conclusions: The failure to prioritize research has resulted in underdevelopment in Nigeria. It is therefore imperative that the federal government prioritize research and establish a functional Special Research Trust Fund to oversee research funding in Nigeria.

Project description:BackgroundEarly career researchers face a hypercompetitive funding environment. To help identify effective intervention strategies for early career researchers, we examined whether first-time NIH R01 applicants who resubmitted their original, unfunded R01 application were more successful at obtaining any R01 funding within 3 and 5 years than original, unfunded applicants who submitted new NIH applications, and we examined whether underrepresented minority (URM) applicants differentially benefited from resubmission. Our observational study is consistent with an NIH working group's recommendations to develop interventions to encourage resubmission.Methods and findingsFirst-time applicants with US medical school academic faculty appointments who submitted an unfunded R01 application between 2000-2014 yielded 4,789 discussed and 7,019 not discussed applications. We then created comparable groups of first-time R01 applicants (resubmitted original R01 application or submitted new NIH applications) using optimal full matching that included applicant and application characteristics. Primary and subgroup analyses used generalized mixed models with obtaining any NIH R01 funding within 3 and 5 years as the two outcomes. A gamma sensitivity analysis was performed. URM applicants represented 11% and 12% of discussed and not discussed applications, respectively. First-time R01 applicants resubmitting their original, unfunded R01 application were more successful obtaining R01 funding within 3 and 5 years than applicants submitting new applications-for both discussed and not discussed applications: discussed within 3 years (OR 4.17 [95 CI 3.53, 4.93]) and 5 years (3.33 [2.82-3.92]); and not discussed within 3 years (2.81 [2.52, 3.13]) and 5 years (2.47 [2.22-2.74]). URM applicants additionally benefited within 5 years for not discussed applications.ConclusionsEncouraging early career researchers applying as faculty at a school of medicine to resubmit R01 applications is a promising potential modifiable factor and intervention strategy. First-time R01 applicants who resubmitted their original, unfunded R01 application had log-odds of obtaining downstream R01 funding within 3 and 5 years 2-4 times higher than applicants who did not resubmit their original application and submitted new NIH applications instead. Findings held for both discussed and not discussed applications.

Dataset Information

The impact of funding deadlines on personal workloads, stress and family relationships: a qualitative study of Australian researchers.

Publications

The impact of funding deadlines on personal workloads, stress and family relationships: a qualitative study of Australian researchers.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets