Inequalities in the distribution of National Institutes of Health research project grant funding.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Lauer MS
PROVIDER: S-EPMC8448532 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:We analyzed changes in total costs for National Institutes of Health (NIH) awarded Research Project Grants (RPGs) issued from fiscal years (FYs) 1998 to 2021 . Costs are measured in 'nominal' terms, meaning exactly as stated, or in 'real' terms, meaning after adjustment for inflation. The NIH uses a data-driven price index - the Biomedical Research and Development Price Index (BRDPI) - to account for inflation, enabling assessment of changes in real (that is, BRDPI-adjusted) costs over time. The BRDPI was higher than the general inflation rate from FY1998 until FY2012; since then the BRDPI has been similar to the general inflation rate likely due to caps on senior faculty salary support. Despite increases in nominal costs, recent years have seen increases in the absolute numbers of RPG and R01 awards. Real average and median RPG costs increased during the NIH-doubling (FY1998 to FY2003), decreased after the doubling and have remained relatively stable since. Of note, though, the degree of variation of RPG costs has changed over time, with more marked extremes observed on both higher and lower levels of cost. On both ends of the cost spectrum, the agency is funding a greater proportion of solicited projects, with nearly half of RPG money going toward solicited projects. After adjusting for confounders, we find no independent association of time with BRDPI-adjusted costs; in other words, changes in real costs are largely explained by changes in the composition of the NIH-grant portfolio.
| S-EPMC9984192 | 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: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:Machine learning (ML) techniques have become ubiquitous and indispensable for solving intricate problems in most disciplines. To determine the extent of funding for clinical research projects applying ML techniques by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 2017, we searched the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results (RePORTER) system using relevant keywords. We identified 535 projects, which together received a total of $264 million, accounting for 2% of the NIH extramural budget for clinical research.
| S-EPMC6994580 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealth research provides a means to define health status and to identify ways to improve health. Our objective was to define the proportion of grants and funding from the Government of Canada's health research investment agency, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), that was awarded for prison health research, and to describe the characteristics of funded grants.MethodsIn this descriptive study, we defined prison health research as research on the health and health care of people in prisons and at the time of their release. We searched the CIHR Funding Decisions Database by subject and by investigator name for funded grants for prison health research in Canada in all competitions between 2010 and 2014. We calculated the proportion of grants and funding awarded for prison health research, and described the characteristics of funded grants.ResultsDuring the 5-year study period, 21 grants were awarded that included a focus on prison health research, for a total of $2 289 948. Six of these grants were operating grants and 6 supported graduate or fellowship training. In total, 0.13% of all grants and 0.05% of all funding was for prison health research.InterpretationA relatively small proportion of CIHR grants and funding were awarded for prison health research between 2010 and 2014. If prison health is a priority for Canada, strategic initiatives that include funding opportunities could be developed to support prison health research in Canada.
| S-EPMC5378501 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Although women at all career stages are more likely to leave academia than men, early-career women are a particularly high-risk group. Research supports that women are less likely than men to receive research funding; however, whether funding success rates vary based on research content is unknown. We addressed gender differences in funding success rates for applications directed to one or more of 13 institutes, representing research communities, over a 15-year period. METHODS AND FINDINGS:We retrospectively reviewed 55,700 grant and 4,087 personnel award applications submitted to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. We analyzed application success rates according to gender and the primary institute selected by applicants, pooled gender differences in success rates using random effects models, and fitted Poisson regression models to assess the effects of gender, time, and institute. We noted variable success rates among grant applications directed to selected institutes and declining success rates over time. Women submitted 31.1% and 44.7% of grant and personnel award applications, respectively. In the pooled estimate, women had significantly lower grant success (risk ratio [RR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-0.94; p < 0.001; absolute difference 3.2%) compared with men, with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 58%). Compared with men, women who directed grants to the Institutes of Cancer Research (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78-0.96), Circulatory and Respiratory Health (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66-0.84), Health Services and Policy Research (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68-0.90), and Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.69-0.93) were significantly less likely to be funded, and those who directed grants to the Institute of Aboriginal People's Health (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.0-2.7) were more likely to be funded. Overall, women also had significantly lower personnel award success (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65-0.86; p < 0.001; absolute difference 6.6%). Regression modelling identified that the effect of gender on grant success rates differed by institute and not time. Study limitations include use of institutes as a surrogate identifier, variability in designation of primary institute, and lack of access to metrics reflecting applicants, coapplicants, peer reviewers, and the peer-review process. CONCLUSIONS:Gender disparity existed overall in grant and personnel award success rates, especially for grants directed to selected research communities. Funding agencies should monitor for gender differences in grant success rates overall and by research content.
| S-EPMC6793847 | biostudies-literature
Project description:IntroductionConduct bibliometric analyses documenting the output of National Institutes of Health (NIH) tobacco-related and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) tobacco regulatory science (FDA-TRS) research portfolios.Aims and methodsPubMed identifiers for publications between 2015 and 2020 citing tobacco funding by NIH and/or FDA were imported into NIH iCite generating measures of productivity and influence, including number of citations, journal, relative citation ratios (RCR), and comparison of research influence across Web of Science (WoS) disciplines. Coauthorship and measures of centrality among and between NIH and FDA-supported investigators gauged collaboration.ResultsBetween FY 2015 and 2020, 8160 publications cited funding from NIH tobacco-related grants, 1776 cited FDA-TRS grants and 496 cited Common funding (ie, both NIH and FDA-TRS funding). The proportion of publications citing NIH grants declined while those citing FDA-TRS or Common funding rose significantly. Publications citing Common funding showed the highest influence (mean RCR = 2.52). Publications citing FDA-TRS funding displayed higher median RCRs than publications citing NIH funding in most WoS categories. Higher translational progress was estimated over time for FDA-TRS and Common publications compared to NIH publications. Authors citing Common funding scored highest across all collaboration measures.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates the high bibliometric output of tobacco research overall. The rise in publications citing FDA-TRS and Common likely reflects increased funding for TRS research. Higher RCRs across WoS subject categories and trends towards human translation among FDA-TRS and Common publications indicate focus on research to inform regulation. This analysis suggests that FDA support for TRS has expanded the field of tobacco control resulting in sustained productivity, influence, and collaboration.ImplicationsThis paper is the first effort to better describe the impact of tobacco research resulting from the addition of FDA funding for TRS in the past decade. The analysis provides impetus for further investigation into the publication topics and their focus which would offer insight into the specific evidence generated on tobacco control and regulation.
| S-EPMC10202643 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:The 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. DESIGN:Secondary analysis of NIH data. SETTING:National Institutes of Health Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool database was used. SUBJECTS:National Institutes of Health tobacco-related awards newly funded during FY2006 and FY2016. MEASURES:Search terms included tobacco, smoking, nicotine, secondhand smoke, and e-cigarettes. Grants and funding amounts were retrieved. ANALYSIS:We 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. RESULTS:There 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%. CONCLUSION:NIH 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:BackgroundEvaluating the National Institute's Health's (NIH's) response to the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic via grants and clinical trials is crucial to determining the impact they had on aiding US citizens. We determined how the NIH's funding for COVID-19 research was disbursed and used by various institutions across the United States.MethodsWe queried NIH RePORTER and isolated COVID-19-related grants from January 2020 to December 2021. We analyzed grant type, geographical location, and awardee institution. Manuscripts published from these grants were quantitatively analyzed. COVID-19 clinical trials were mapped and distances from counties to clinical trial sites were calculated using ArcGis.ResultsA total of 2401 COVID-19 NIH grants resulted in 14 654 manuscripts from $4.2 billion and generated more than 150 000 citations. R01s make up 32% of grants (763/2401) and 8% of funding ($329 million). UM1 grants account for the majority of funding (30.8%; $1.3 Billion). Five states received 50.6% of funding: North Carolina, Washington, New York, California, and Massachusetts. Finally, of the 1806 clinical trials across 1266 sites in the United States, the majority were in metropolitan areas in close proximity to areas of high COVID-19 disease burden.Conclusions and relevanceEvaluating the outcome of the NIH's response to the COVID-19 pandemic is of interest to the general public. The present study finds that the NIH disbursed more than $4 billion in funding to large consortiums and clinical trials to develop diagnostics, therapeutics, and vaccines. Approximately 8% of funding was used for R01 grants. Clinical trial sites were generally located in areas of high COVID-19 burden.
| S-EPMC10965119 | biostudies-literature