The Association of Women Surgeons research grant: An analysis of the first 25 years

Success of Resident Research Grants in Orthopaedic Trauma From 2000 to 2022: A Retrospective Review

OBJECTIVES

The objective of this study was to determine the publication rate for orthopaedic trauma resident research projects that receive grant funding and the long-term academic involvement of the grant recipients.

METHODS

DESIGN

Retrospective.

SETTING

Publically available records for resident research grant recipients.

PATIENT SELECTION CRITERIA

Resident research grants on orthopaedic trauma topics from Orthopaedic Trauma Association (OTA), AO North America (AONA), and Orthopaedic Research and Education Foundation from 2000 to 2022.

OUTCOME MEASURES AND COMPARISONS

Subsequent related publications, grant size, time to publication, sustained academic involvement of the residents as measured by academic position, total number of publications, and h-index.

RESULTS

Three hundred ninety-seven orthopaedic trauma grants (OTA 117, AONA 225, and OREF 55) were identified. A total of 38% (151) of grants resulted in a publication with no significant difference between agencies (P = 0.94). The average amount awarded was $9,843, with no correlation to publication (P = 0.63). The mean time to publication was 3.57 ± 2.33 years. The time to publication for AONA was significantly longer than for OTA (4.14 vs. 2.83 years, P = 0.004). There was no difference in total publications, h-index, or NIH grants between grant recipients from different agencies. More OTA grant recipients held an academic position compared with AONA grant recipients (63% vs. 43%, P = 0.003). Grant awardees with initial publication success were 1.7 times as likely to have a future academic appointment (P = 0.014) and had 1.9 times the number of publications than those without (P = 0.001). Awardees with an h-index in the top quartile were significantly more likely to have published than those with an h-index in the bottom quartile (P = 0.007).

CONCLUSIONS

Fewer than half of orthopaedic trauma-related resident research grants resulted in a publication with comparable rates across agencies. Grant size did not predict publication success. Publication success was a positive predictor of continued academic involvement. Most publications occurred within 5 years, suggesting that these grants may be most helpful in career development if awarded during the first 1-2 years of a 5-year orthopaedic residency program.

Article Factors Influencing Gender Disparities in Senior Authorship of Plastic Surgery Publications

INTRODUCTION

Female plastic surgeons publish fewer and lower impact articles. To better understand how to address this gender gap, we explored the temporal trends in female senior authorship and evaluated predictive factors for female senior authorship.

METHODS

A retrospective review of articles published in the 3 highest impact plastic surgery journals published from 2010 to 2020 was conducted. Trends with female senior authorship across time were analyzed with respect to study type, subspeciality, and geographical origin.

RESULTS

Of the 5425 articles included, 13% (n = 720) had a female senior author, and female senior authorship increased across time ( R = 0.84, P = 0.033). Over the decade, an increased proportion of cohort studies ( R = 0.82, P = 0.045), systematic reviews ( R = 0.96, P = 0.003), breast-related articles ( R = 0.88, P = 0.022), and reconstruction-related articles ( R = 0.83, P = 0.039) were published by female senior authors. Subspecialty and geography predicted female senior authorship; articles focused on aesthetic (odds ratio [OR] = 1.3, P = 0.046) and breast (OR = 1.7, P < 0.001) subspecialties or those originating from Canada (OR = 1.7 P = 0.019), Europe (OR = 1.5, P < 0.001), and Latin America (OR = 3.0, P < 0.001) were more likely to have a female senior author. Articles from East Asia were less likely to have female senior authors (OR = 0.7, P = 0.005).

CONCLUSION

Female senior authorship in plastic surgery has increased over the last decade, and the proportion of female plastic surgeons leading cohort studies and systematic reviews is increasing. Sex of the senior author is influenced by plastic surgery subspecialty and geographical origin, but article type did not impact the odds of female senior authorship.

Growing the next generation of trauma surgeon-scientists: Reflections on 20 years of research investment

INTRODUCTION

The Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma mission includes fostering research and providing career development opportunities. Eastern Association for the Surgery of Trauma has awarded for 20 years a research scholarship to a promising young investigator. The research mentorship efforts were expanded 5 years ago with the INVEST-C Hack-a-thon. INVEST-C provides an intensive, short-term engagement to propel junior faculty toward establishing research independence. This study investigates the impact of these programs on academic productivity.

METHODS

Pubmed records, National Institutes of Health (NIH) Reporter data, and SCOPUS h-index were acquired for all scholarship (SCH) awardees from 2002 to 2021 (n = 20) and all INVEST-C (INV) participants (2017-2020, n = 19). Current type of practice, total number of funding awards, and timing of first award were ascertained. INVEST-C participants were also surveyed on an annual basis to track their progress. Medians (interquartile range [IQR]) are reported and compared (analysis of variance).

RESULTS

Median publications (PUBs) of SCH awardees were 56 (IQR, 33-88), h-index was 16 (IQR, 12-21), and 25% of awardees have ≥1 NIH grant since their SCH. Among the last 10 awardees with a minimum of 2 years from SCH, 40% have received an NIH award compared with a mean NIH funding rate of 18.5% over the same period. For those remaining in academics (90% SCH), PUBs were higher for those >5 years (66 [IQR, 51-115]) versus <5 years from their SCH (33 [22-59]; p = 0.05), but there was no difference in h-index (16 [IQR, 14-25] vs. 15 [9-19], p = NS). Comparing the most recent 5 years of SCH to INV group, there was no difference in academic productivity as measured by total PUBs (SCH, 33 [IQR, 22-59] vs. INV, 34 [IQR, 18-44]; p = 0.7) or h-index (INV, 9 [IQR, 5-14]; p = 0.1). However, no attendee held research funding before INV, but 31.6% (6 of 19 attendees) have subsequently acquired ≥1 funding award (11 non-NIH, 1 NIH) in the short interval since participation.

CONCLUSION

Investments in research activities have translated to significant extramural funding. Those in the last 5 years have been particularly fruitful with INV participants already achieving equal median academic productivity to SCH recipients.

LEVEL OF EVIDENCE

Prognostic and Epidemiologic; Level III.

What funders are doing to assess the impact of their investments in health and biomedical research

As pressures to maximize research funding grow, biomedical research funders are increasingly tasked with demonstrating the long-term and real-world impacts of their funded research investments. Over the past three decades, research impact assessments (RIA) have emerged as an important tool for analysing the impacts of research by incorporating logic models, frameworks and indicators to track measures of knowledge production, capacity-building, development of research products, adoption of research into clinical guidelines and policies, and the realization of health, economic and social benefits. While there are currently several models for RIA within the literature, less attention has been paid to how funders can practically select and implement a RIA model to demonstrate the impacts of their own research portfolios. In this paper, a literature review was performed to understand (1) which research funders have performed RIAs of their research portfolios to date; (2) how funders have designed their assessments, including the models and tools they have used; (3) what challenges to and facilitators of success have funders found when adopting the RIA model to their own portfolio; and (4) who participates in the assessments. Forty-four papers from both published and grey literature were found to meet the review criteria and were examined in detail. There is a growing culture of RIA among funders, and included papers spanned a diverse set of funders from 10 countries or regions. Over half of funders (59.1%) used a framework to conduct their assessment, and a variety of methods for collecting impact data were reported. Issues of methodological rigour were observed across studies in the review, and this was related to numerous challenges funders faced in designing timely RIAs with quality impact data. Over a third of articles (36.4%) included input from stakeholders, yet only one article reported surveying patients and members of the public as part of the assessment. To advance RIA among funders, we offer several recommendations for increasing the methodological rigour of RIAs and suggestions for future research, and call for a careful reflection of the voices needed in an impact assessment to ensure that RIAs are having a meaningful impact on patients and the public.

Where Are the Women: Evolution of Women's Specialty Organizations

Women emerged against significant obstacles in the nineteenth century to claim a right to participate in the health professions. Women were excluded from many areas of medical and dental practice until well after the 1964 Civil Rights Act forbade discrimination on the basis of sex. Their entry has been, and continues to be, blocked by discrimination, misogyny, and harassment both personal and institutional. The formation of women-specific surgical subspecialty organizations has improved access to mentoring, sponsorship, and acceptance. This article reviews the history of some of the older organizations with recommendations for OMFS women's action.

NIH Funding of Researchers in Surgery: Decreased Career Development Awards Over Time

BACKGROUND

Over time, NIH funding has become increasingly competitive. In addition, academic surgeons' research competes with time required for patient care, operating, and administrative work. Due to these competing interests for surgeons, we hypothesize that the percentage of NIH grants awarded to researchers from departments of surgery is decreasing.

METHODS

The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool was queried for the number and value of new and renewal R01 grants, and career development awards noting which surgery departments received awards from 1998 to -2018. Statistical analysis was performed using univariate and multivariable logistic regression.

RESULTS

The number of career development awards granted to researchers from departments of surgery decreased significantly over time (P = 0.007) while new R01's and R01 renewal awards were stable. The number of grants awarded to researchers from all procedural departments were compared to non-procedural departments and again, career development awards decreased significantly (P = 0.005) over time but new R01's and R01 renewals stayed stable. Looking at the difference in average dollar amount received for new R01, renewal R01, or career development awards between department of surgery awardees and non-surgery over time, there was no significant difference.

CONCLUSIONS

NIH funding is becoming increasingly competitive and surgeons have many competing interests. Our study found that there has been a significant decrease in career development awards to department of surgery awardees and procedural specialists. The decrease in receipt of these awards is particularly concerning given that they are meant to provide protected time for developing researchers and thus have potential consequences for future research.