Dataset Information

Factors Associated With Success of Clinician-Researchers Receiving Career Development Awards From the National Institutes of Health: A Longitudinal Cohort Study.

ABSTRACT: PURPOSE:Understanding the careers of recent career development awardees is essential to guide interventions to ensure gender equity and success in academic medicine. METHOD:In 2010-2011 (T1) and 2014 (T2), 1,719 clinician-researchers who received new K08 and K23 awards in 2006-2009 were longitudinally surveyed. Multivariable analyses evaluated the influence of factors on success, including demographics, job characteristics, work environment, priorities, and domestic responsibilities. RESULTS:Of 1,275 respondents at T1, 1,066 (493 women; 573 men) responded at T2. Men and women differed in job characteristics, work environment, priorities, and domestic responsibilities. By T2, women had less funding (mean $780,000 vs. $1,120,000, P = .002) and published fewer papers (mean 33 vs. 45). Using a composite measure that considered funding, publications, or leadership to define success, 53.5% (264/493) of women and 67.0% (384/573) of men were successful. Gender differences in success persisted after accounting for other significant predictors-K award type, specialty, award year, work hours, funding institute tier, feeling responsible for participating in department/division administration, importance of publishing prolifically, feeling responsible for contributing to clinical care, importance of publishing high-quality research, collegiality of the mentoring relationship, adequacy of research equipment, and departmental climate. A significant interaction existed between K award type and gender; the gender difference in success was most pronounced among K23 researchers (among whom the odds ratio for females = 0.32). CONCLUSIONS:Men and women continue to have different experiences and career outcomes, with important implications for the design of interventions to promote equity and success.

SUBMITTER: Jagsi R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5617758 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Oct

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Factors Associated With Success of Clinician-Researchers Receiving Career Development Awards From the National Institutes of Health: A Longitudinal Cohort Study.

Jagsi Reshma R Griffith Kent A KA Jones Rochelle D RD Stewart Abigail A Ubel Peter A PA

Academic medicine : journal of the Association of American Medical Colleges 20171001 10

<h4>Purpose</h4>Understanding the careers of recent career development awardees is essential to guide interventions to ensure gender equity and success in academic medicine.<h4>Method</h4>In 2010-2011 (T1) and 2014 (T2), 1,719 clinician-researchers who received new K08 and K23 awards in 2006-2009 were longitudinally surveyed. Multivariable analyses evaluated the influence of factors on success, including demographics, job characteristics, work environment, priorities, and domestic responsibiliti ...[more]

PMID: 28537950

Similar Datasets

Project description:The 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.This 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.Sixty-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.Over 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.

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.

Project description:BackgroundClinician-educator (CE) careers in academic medicine are heterogeneous. Expectations for CEs have grown, along with a need to better prepare CEs for these roles.ObjectiveTo assess whether advanced education training is associated with productivity and success.DesignWe used a sequential mixed methods approach, collecting quantitative survey data and qualitative focus groups data. We developed a three-tiered categorization of advanced training to reflect intensity by program type.ParticipantsWe surveyed CEs in the Society of General Internal Medicine (SGIM) and conducted two focus groups at an SGIM annual meeting.Main measuresPrimary outcomes were academic productivity (manuscripts, presentations, etc.) and leadership role attainment. Secondary analysis examined the interactive effect of gender and training intensity on these outcomes.Key resultsA total of 198 completed the survey (response rate 53%). Compared with medium- or low-intensity training, high-intensity training was associated with a greater likelihood of publishing ≥ 3 first- or senior-author manuscripts (adjusted OR 2.6; CI 0.8-8.6; p = 0.002), teaching ≥ 3 lectures/workshops at the regional/national/international level (adjusted OR 5.7; CI 1.5-21.3; p = 0.001), and having ≥ 3 regional/national committee memberships (adjusted OR 3.4; CI 1.0-11.7; p = 0.04). Among participants in the "no training" and "high-intensity training" categories, men were more likely to have ≥ 3 publications (OR 4.87 and 3.17, respectively), while women in the high intensity category had a likelihood similar to men with no training (OR 4.81 vs. OR 4.87). Participants felt the value of advanced training exists not only in content but also in networking opportunities that programs provide.ConclusionsWhile opinions were divided as to whether advanced training is necessary to position oneself for education roles, it is associated with greater academic productivity and reduced gender disparity in the publication domain. Institutions should consider providing opportunities for CEs to pursue advanced education training.

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.

Dataset Information

Factors Associated With Success of Clinician-Researchers Receiving Career Development Awards From the National Institutes of Health: A Longitudinal Cohort Study.

Publications

Factors Associated With Success of Clinician-Researchers Receiving Career Development Awards From the National Institutes of Health: A Longitudinal Cohort Study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets