Show Me the Money: Successfully Obtaining Grant Funding in Medical Education.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Gottlieb M
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6324695 | biostudies-literature | 2019 Jan
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Show Me the Money: Successfully Obtaining Grant Funding in Medical Education.
Gottlieb Michael M Lee Sangil S Burkhardt John J Carlson Jestin N JN King Andrew M AM Wong Ambrose H AH Santen Sally A SA
The western journal of emergency medicine 20181119 1
Obtaining grant funding is a fundamental component to achieving a successful research career. A successful grant application needs to meet specific mechanistic expectations of reviewers and funders. This paper provides an overview of the importance of grant funding within medical education, followed by a stepwise discussion of strategies for creating a successful grant application for medical education-based proposals. The last section includes a list of available medical education research gran ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:This paper presents longitudinal data representing federal funding for health services research and discusses the observed trends in the larger context of overall funding for research and development in the United States. By putting into context public and private funding trends, the authors examine how these trends effect the supply and demand of the health services research workforce.
| S-EPMC6149363 | biostudies-literature
Project description:There has been a surge of interest in research integrity over the last decade, with a wide range of studies investigating the prevalence of questionable research practices (QRPs). However, nearly all these studies focus on research design, data collection and analysis, and hardly any empirical research has been done on the occurrence of QRPs in the context of research funding. To fill this gap, we conducted a cross-sectional pre-registered survey of applicants, reviewers and panel members from the Research Foundation-Flanders (FWO), one of the main funding agencies in Belgium. We developed a bespoke survey and further refined it through feedback from experienced researchers and a pilot study. We asked how often respondents had engaged in a series of QRPs over the last ten years. A total of 1748 emails were sent, inviting recipients to participate in the survey, complemented by featuring the survey in the FWO newsletter. This resulted in 704 complete responses. Our results indicate that such QRPs are remarkably prevalent. Of the 496 participants who answered both the applicant and reviewer track, more than 60% responded that they engaged regularly in at least one of such practices, and around 40% indicated that they engaged at least occasionally in half of the QRPs queried. Only 12% reported not to have engaged in any of the QRPs. Contrary to our hypotheses, male respondents did not self-report to engage in the QRPs more often than female respondents, nor was there an association between the prevalence of QRPs and self-reported success rate in grant funding. Furthermore, half of the respondents indicated that they doubted the reliability of the grant peer review process more often than not. These results suggest that preventive action is needed, and provide new reasons to reconsider the practice of allocating research money through grant peer review.
| S-EPMC10621923 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In this paper, we estimate the impact of receiving an NIH grant on subsequent publications and citations. Our sample consists of all applications (unsuccessful as well as successful) to the NIH from 1980 to 2000 for standard research grants (R01s). Both OLS and IV estimates show that receipt of an NIH research grant (worth roughly $1.7 million) leads to only one additional publication over the next five years, which corresponds to a 7 percent increase. The limited impact of NIH grants is consistent with a model in which the market for research funding is competitive, so that the loss of an NIH grant simply causes researchers to shift to another source of funding.
| S-EPMC3156466 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo quantify randomness and cost when choosing health and medical research projects for funding.DesignRetrospective analysis.SettingGrant review panels of the National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia.ParticipantsPanel members' scores for grant proposals submitted in 2009.Main outcome measuresThe proportion of grant proposals that were always, sometimes, and never funded after accounting for random variability arising from differences in panel members' scores, and the cost effectiveness of different size assessment panels.Results59% of 620 funded grants were sometimes not funded when random variability was taken into account. Only 9% (n = 255) of grant proposals were always funded, 61% (n = 1662) never funded, and 29% (n=788) sometimes funded. The extra cost per grant effectively funded from the most effective system was $A18,541 (£11,848; €13,482; $19,343).ConclusionsAllocating funding for scientific research in health and medicine is costly and somewhat random. There are many useful research questions to be addressed that could improve current processes.
| S-EPMC3181233 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundMedical education is characterized by numerous features that are different from other higher education programmes, and evaluations of teaching quality are an integral part of medical education. Although scholars have made extensive efforts to enhance the quality of teaching, various issues unrelated to teaching that interfere with the accuracy of evaluation results remain. The purpose of this study is to identify the barriers that prevent objective and reliable results from being obtained during the evaluation process.MethodsThis study used mixed methods (3 data sources) to collect opinions from different stakeholders. Based on purposive sampling, 16 experts familiar with teaching management and 12 s- and third-year students were invited to participate in interviews and discussions, respectively. Additionally, based on systematic random sampling, 74 teachers were invited to complete a questionnaire survey. All qualitative data were imported into NVivo software and analysed using thematic analysis in chronological order and based on grounded theory. Statistical analyses of the questionnaire results were conducted using SPSS software.ResultsSixty-nine valid questionnaires (93.24%) were recovered. A total of 29 open codes were extracted, and 14 axial codes were summarized and divided into four selective codes: evaluation preparation, the index system, the operation process, and the consequences of evaluation. The main barriers to obtaining reliable evaluation results included inadequate attention, unreasonable weighting, poor teaching facilities, an index without pertinence and appropriate descriptions, bad time-points, incomplete information on the system, lagged feedback, and disappointing result application. Almost all participants suggested lowering the weight of students as subjects, with a weight of 50-60% being appropriate. Students showed dissatisfaction with evaluation software, and the participants disagreed over the definition of good teaching and the management of student attendance.ConclusionsThis study reveals the difficulties and problems in current evaluations of teaching in medical education. Collecting data from multiple stakeholders helps in better understanding the evaluation process. Educators need to be aware of various issues that may affect the final results when designing the evaluation system and interpreting the results. More research on solutions to these problems and the development of a reasonable evaluation system is warranted.
| S-EPMC7523339 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Grantsmanship is an integral component of surviving and thriving in academic science, especially in the current funding climate. Therefore, any additional opportunities to write, read, and review grants during graduate school may have lasting benefits on one's career. We present here our experience with a small, student-run grant program at Georgetown University Medical Center. Founded in 2010, this program has several goals: 1) to give graduate students an opportunity to conduct small, independent research projects; 2) to encourage graduate students to write grants early and often; and 3) to give graduate students an opportunity to review grants. In the 3 yr since the program's start, 28 applications have been submitted, 13 of which were funded for a total of $40,000. From funded grants, students have produced abstracts and manuscripts, generated data to support subsequent grant proposals, and made new professional contacts with collaborators. Above and beyond financial support, this program provided both applicants and reviewers an opportunity to improve their writing skills, professional development, and understanding of the grants process, as reflected in the outcome measures presented. With a small commitment of time and funding, other institutions could implement a program like this to the benefit of their graduate students.
| S-EPMC3763010 | biostudies-literature
Project description:This study conducts a randomised control trial to offer a technical workshop and examine whether providing information about the full range of services on the mobile money platform would increase mobile money usage, by taking a case of the Ashanti Region, Ghana. We find a significant positive impact of mobile money education on the recent usage of mobile money for transactions. However, no significant evidence of the workshop was found on new mobile money account ownership, or on the share of transactions transmitted through mobile money. Furthermore, weak and volatile outcomes were observed as impacts on remittances after the interventions. We discuss potential reasons behind the weak effects found.Supplementary informationThe online version contains supplementary material available at 10.1057/s41287-022-00529-x.
| S-EPMC9005914 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Recent data highlights an imbalance in research grant success among groups underrepresented within the biomedical workforce, including racial/ethnic minorities and women. However, there is no data on grant success for researchers with disabilities. For these analyses, aggregate data on self-reported disability status for National Institute on Health (NIH) research grant applicants and awardees was obtained from 2008 to 2018, including disability category: mobility/orthopedic, hearing, visual disabilities, and other disabilities. The percentage of applications and awards, as well as grant success rates (% of applicants receiving awards), by Principal Investigators (PIs) disability status were calculated. Data was desegregated, and logistic models determined trend of applicants reporting disability over time. The percentage of NIH grant applicants with PIs reporting a disability significantly declined from 1.9% in 2008, to 1.2% in 2018 (p<0.001). Data on grant awardees was similar, 1.9% of awards in 2008, declining to 1.2% in 2018 (p<0.001) had PIs reporting a disability. Across all years, the percentage of applications and awards with PIs reporting visual disabilities was lower than the percentage reporting mobility/orthopedic, or hearing disabilities (16.5%, 34.2%, and 37.8% in 2008, respectively). Overall grant success rates differed by disability status (27.2% for those reporting disability vs 29.7% in those reporting no disability, p<0.001). The lowest overall grant success rate was among PIs reporting unknown disability status or who withheld this status (18.6%). These results underscore the underrepresentation of researchers with disabilities among grant applicants and awardees, and indicate lower grant success rates among PIs reporting disabilities.
| S-EPMC7053734 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Previous reports have described worsening inequalities of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. We analyzed Research Project Grant data through the end of Fiscal Year 2020, confirming worsening inequalities beginning at the time of the NIH budget doubling (1998-2003), while finding that trends in recent years have reversed for both investigators and institutions, but only to a modest degree. We also find that career-stage trends have stabilized, with equivalent proportions of early-, mid-, and late-career investigators funded from 2017 to 2020. The fraction of women among funded PIs continues to increase, but they are still not at parity. Analyses of funding inequalities show that inequalities for investigators, and to a lesser degree for institutions, have consistently been greater within groups (i.e. within groups by career stage, gender, race, and degree) than between groups.
| S-EPMC8448532 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectiveTo describe differences in funded grants between male and female faculty in two academic emergency departments.MethodsThis was a retrospective analysis of grant funding at two academic emergency departments from January 2012-September 2018. We queried the grants department databases at each institution and obtained records of all funded grants for emergency medicine (EM) faculty. We extracted the following information for each award: gender of the principal investigator (PI), PI academic rank, grant mechanism (government, institutional, industry, organizational), and percent effort. Differences by gender were compared using Chi-square or Fisher's exact test and Wilcoxon-rank sum.ResultsOne-hundred and thirty grants were awarded to EM faculty at the two institutions during the study period. Of the funded grants, 35 (27%) of recipients were female. Among grant recipients, females held lower academic ranking than males (p-value < 0.001): Instructor (49% vs 51%), Assistant Professor (36% vs 64%), Associate Professor (9% vs 91%), and Professor (0% vs 100%), respectively. Organizational grants were dispersed equally between funded faculty, but females received a fewer government, industry, and institutional grants (p-value = 0.007). Female grant recipients were awarded a higher median percent of effort compared to males (14% [IQR: 3-51] vs 8% [IQR: 1-15], respectively, p-value = 0.023).ConclusionIn this multicenter analysis, gender discrepancies exist among funded grants of EM faculty. Male recipients had higher academic ranking than their female counterparts. Female recipients were less likely to have government, institutional, and industry grants but received a greater percent effort on funding that was awarded.
| S-EPMC7769158 | biostudies-literature