Sex Differences Among Career Development Awardees in the Attainment of Independent Research Funding in a Department of Medicine

Gender differences in peer reviewed grant applications, awards, and amounts: a systematic review and meta-analysis

BACKGROUND

Differential participation and success in grant applications may contribute to women's lesser representation in the sciences. This study's objective was to conduct a systematic review and meta-analysis to address the question of gender differences in grant award acceptance rates and reapplication award acceptance rates (potential bias in peer review outcomes) and other grant outcomes.

METHODS

The review was registered on PROSPERO (CRD42021232153) and conducted in accordance with PRISMA 2020 standards. We searched Academic Search Complete, PubMed, and Web of Science for the timeframe 1 January 2005 to 31 December 2020, and forward and backward citations. Studies were included that reported data, by gender, on any of the following: grant applications or reapplications, awards, award amounts, award acceptance rates, or reapplication award acceptance rates. Studies that duplicated data reported in another study were excluded. Gender differences were investigated by meta-analyses and generalized linear mixed models. Doi plots and LFK indices were used to assess reporting bias.

RESULTS

The searches identified 199 records, of which 13 were eligible. An additional 42 sources from forward and backward searches were eligible, for a total of 55 sources with data on one or more outcomes. The data from these studies ranged from 1975 to 2020: 49 sources were published papers and six were funders' reports (the latter were identified by forwards and backwards searches). Twenty-nine studies reported person-level data, 25 reported application-level data, and one study reported both: person-level data were used in analyses. Award acceptance rates were 1% higher for men, which was not significantly different from women (95% CI 3% more for men to 1% more for women, k = 36, n = 303,795 awards and 1,277,442 applications, I² = 84%). Reapplication award acceptance rates were significantly higher for men (9%, 95% CI 18% to 1%, k = 7, n = 7319 applications and 3324 awards, I² = 63%). Women received smaller award amounts (g = -2.28, 95% CI -4.92 to 0.36, k = 13, n = 212,935, I² = 100%).

CONCLUSIONS

The proportions of women that applied for grants, re-applied, accepted awards, and accepted awards after reapplication were less than the proportion of eligible women. However, the award acceptance rate was similar for women and men, implying no gender bias in this peer reviewed grant outcome. Women received smaller awards and fewer awards after re-applying, which may negatively affect continued scientific productivity. Greater transparency is needed to monitor and verify these data globally.

Scholarly Productivity Evaluation of KL2 Scholars Using Bibliometrics and Federal Follow-on Funding: Cross-Institution Study

Background

Evaluating outcomes of the clinical and translational research (CTR) training of a Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hub (eg, the KL2 program) requires the selection of reliable, accessible, and standardized measures. As measures of scholarly success usually focus on publication output and extramural funding, CTSA hubs have started to use bibliometrics to evaluate the impact of their supported scholarly activities. However, the evaluation of KL2 programs across CTSAs is limited, and the use of bibliometrics and follow-on funding is minimal.

Objective

This study seeks to evaluate scholarly productivity, impact, and collaboration using bibliometrics and federal follow-on funding of KL2 scholars from 3 CTSA hubs and to define and assess CTR training success indicators.

Methods

The sample included KL2 scholars from 3 CTSA institutions (A-C). Bibliometric data for each scholar in the sample were collected from both SciVal and iCite, including scholarly productivity, citation impact, and research collaboration. Three federal follow-on funding measures (at the 5-year, 8-year, and overall time points) were collected internally and confirmed by examining a federal funding database. Both descriptive and inferential statistical analyses were computed using SPSS to assess the bibliometric and federal follow-on funding results.

Results

A total of 143 KL2 scholars were included in the sample with relatively equal groups across the 3 CTSA institutions. The included KL2 scholars produced more publications and citation counts per year on average at the 8-year time point (3.75 publications and 26.44 citation counts) than the 5-year time point (3.4 publications vs 26.16 citation counts). Overall, the KL2 publications from all 3 institutions were cited twice as much as others in their fields based on the relative citation ratio. KL2 scholars published work with researchers from other US institutions over 2 times (5-year time point) or 3.5 times (8-year time point) more than others in their research fields. Within 5 years and 8 years postmatriculation, 44.1% (63/143) and 51.7% (74/143) of KL2 scholars achieved federal funding, respectively. The KL2-scholars of Institution C had a significantly higher citation rate per publication than the other institutions (P<.001). Institution A had a significantly lower rate of nationally field-weighted collaboration than did the other institutions (P<.001). Institution B scholars were more likely to have received federal funding than scholars at Institution A or C (P<.001).

Conclusions

Multi-institutional data showed a high level of scholarly productivity, impact, collaboration, and federal follow-on funding achieved by KL2 scholars. This study provides insights on the use of bibliometric and federal follow-on funding data to evaluate CTR training success across institutions. CTSA KL2 programs and other CTR career training programs can benefit from these findings in terms of understanding metrics of career success and using that knowledge to develop highly targeted strategies to support early-stage career development of CTR investigators.

Representation of Female Faculty at US Medical Schools and Success in Obtaining National Institutes of Health Funding, 2008-2018

This cross-sectional study assesses the representation and success of female faculty at US medical schools and their success in obtaining funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) between 2008 and 2018.

The leaky pipeline in research grant peer review and funding decisions: challenges and future directions

The growing literature on gender inequality in academia attests to the challenge that awaits female researchers during their academic careers. However, research has not yet conclusively resolved whether these biases persist during the peer review process of research grant funding and whether they impact respective funding decisions. Whereas many have argued for the existence of gender inequality in grant peer reviews and outcomes, others have demonstrated that gender equality is upheld during these processes. In the present paper, we illustrate how these opinions have come to such opposing conclusions and consider methodological and contextual factors that render these findings inconclusive. More specifically, we argue that a more comprehensive approach is needed to further the debate, encompassing individual and systemic biases as well as more global social barriers. We also argue that examining gender biases during the peer review process of research grant funding poses critical methodological challenges that deserve special attention. We conclude by providing directions for possible future research and more general considerations that may improve grant funding opportunities and career paths for female researchers.

Supporting Inclusion, Diversity, Access, and Equity in the Infectious Disease Workforce

In medicine, a wide array of evidence demonstrates the presence of gender, racial, ethnic, and other disparities in representation, compensation, and career development. These disparities also exist in the field of infectious diseases, providing important opportunities for the Infectious Diseases Society of America to identify and report its successes in and challenges to achieving equity. In this article, we review the literature documenting challenges with equity broadly in medicine and specifically in infectious diseases. We then introduce the Be Ethical Campaign, an initiative that encourages healthcare leaders to use metrics and data analysis to identify workforce equity gaps and pursue opportunities to close them.

Proportion of female recipients of resident-selected awards across Canada from 2000 to 2018: a retrospective observational study

BACKGROUND

Female physicians have been shown to receive fewer awards from medical societies than their male colleagues. We examined the sex distribution of recipients of Canadian residency association awards.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective observational study of the sex of staff and resident physician recipients of resident-selected awards from provincial and national residency associations using data from 2000-2018. We classified awards into professionalism, advocacy and wellness awards, and education and teaching awards based on award names and descriptions, and compared the proportion of male and female recipients in these categories.

RESULTS

We identified 314 recipients of staff physician awards and 129 recipients of resident physician awards. Male staff and resident physicians had higher odds of receiving awards than their female counterparts (odds ratio [OR] 1.45, 95% confidence interval [CI] 1.13-1.89 and OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.18-2.46, respectively). There was a reduction in the odds of male residents' receiving an award over the study period (OR 0.94, 95% CI 0.90-0.98). Male physicians had higher odds of receiving education and teaching awards than female physicians as staff but not as residents (OR 3.21, 95% CI 1.72-5.95 and OR 1.96, 95% CI 0.84-4.60, respectively).

INTERPRETATION

Male staff and resident physicians in Canada had higher odds of receiving awards from provincial and national residency associations between 2000 and 2018 than their female counterparts. Given this disparity, it would be prudent for organizations that distribute awards to physicians, residents and medical students to examine their nomination criteria and processes for potential bias.

Federal Funding in Emergency Medicine: Demographics and Perspectives of Awardees

INTRODUCTION

Emergency physicians face multiple challenges to obtaining federal funding. The objective of this investigation was to describe the demographics of federally-funded emergency physicians and identify key challenges in obtaining funding.

METHODS

We conducted a retrospective database search of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool (NIH RePORTER) to collect data regarding the distribution and characteristics of federally-funded grants awarded to emergency medicine (EM) principal investigators between 2010-2017. An electronic survey was then administered to the identified investigators to obtain additional demographic data, and information regarding their career paths, research environment, and perceived barriers to obtaining federal funding.

RESULTS

We identified 219, corresponding to 51 unique, mentored career development awardees and 105 independent investigators. Sixty-two percent of investigators responded to the electronic survey. Awardees were predominantly White males, although a larger portion of the mentored awardee group was female. Greater than half of respondents reported their mentor to be outside of the field of EM. The most common awarding institution was the National Heart Lung and Blood Institute. Respondents identified barriers in finding adequate mentorship, time to gather preliminary data, and the quality of administrative support.

CONCLUSION

The last five years have showed a trend toward increasing grants awarded to EM investigators; however, we identified several barriers to funding. Initiatives geared toward support and mentorship of junior faculty, particularly to females, minorities, and those in less heavily funded areas of the country are warranted.

Gender, Race, and Grant Reviews: Translating and Responding to Research Feedback

Grant-writing and grant-getting are key to success in many academic disciplines, but research points to gender gaps in both, especially as careers progress. Using a sample of National Institutes of Health (NIH) K-Awardees-Principal Investigators of Mentored Career Development Awards-we examined gender and race effects in response to imagined negative grant reviews that emphasized either promise or inadequacy. Women translated both forms of feedback into worse NIH priority scores than did men and showed reduced motivation to reapply for funding following the review highlighting inadequacy. Translation of feedback mediated the effects of gender on motivation, changing one's research focus, and advice-seeking. Race effects were less consistent, and race did not moderate effects of gender. We suggest that gender bias in grant reviews (i.e., greater likelihood of highlighting inadequacy in reviews of women's grants), along with gender differences in responsiveness to feedback, may contribute to women's underrepresentation in academic medicine.

International and Geographic Trends in Gender Authorship within Plastic Surgery

BACKGROUND

Professional advancement in academic plastic surgery may depend on scholarly activity. The authors evaluate gender-based publishing characteristics in three international plastic surgery journals.

METHODS

A retrospective review of all articles published in 2016 in the following journals was undertaken: Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, European Journal of Plastic Surgery, Annals of Surgery, and New England Journal of Medicine. Data were collected on lead author gender (first or senior author) and differences in author gender proportions, by journal, by article topic, and by geographic location were evaluated.

RESULTS

Overall, 2610 articles were retrieved: 34.1 percent were from plastic surgery journals, 12.8 percent were from the Annals of Surgery, and 53.1 percent were from the New England Journal of Medicine. There was a lower proportion of female lead authors among plastic surgery journals compared with the Annals of Surgery and the New England Journal of Medicine (31 percent versus 39 percent versus 39 percent; p = 0.001). There were no differences in female lead author geographic location in the Annals of Surgery or the New England Journal of Medicine; within the plastic surgery journals, there were differences (p = 0.005), including a lower proportion arising from East Asia (15 percent) and a higher proportion arising from Canada (48 percent). Within plastic surgery, Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery had the lowest proportion of female lead author (p < 0.001). The proportion of female lead author varied by article topic (p < 0.001) and was notably higher in breast (45.6 percent) and lower in head and neck/craniofacial-orientated articles (25.0 percent).

CONCLUSIONS

There are gender disparities in three mainstream plastic surgery journals-Plastic and Reconstructive Surgery, the Journal of Plastic, Reconstructive and Aesthetic Surgery, the European Journal of Plastic Surgery-and there are lower proportions of lead female authorship compared with the Annals of Surgery and the New England Journal of Medicine. Further research should focus on understanding any geographic disparities that may exist.

Evaluation of a mid-career investigator career development award: Assessing the ability of OppNet K18 awardees to obtain NIH follow-on research funding

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) K18 award mechanism provides funded opportunities for established investigators to gain knowledge in fields outside of their primary disciplines, but outcomes associated with these awards have not been evaluated to date. NIH's Basic Behavioral and Social Sciences Opportunity Network (OppNet) is one of the few initiatives that has used this award mechanism. We explored how the unique features of K18 awards affect the ability of recipients to obtain follow-on NIH research funding. We compared outcomes (ability to obtain follow-on funding and interval between receipt of the primary award and receipt of the first follow-on award) associated with OppNet K18 awards to findings from evaluations of other NIH career development (K) awards, which usually target early-career investigators. We hypothesized that K18 award recipients might be (1) more successful than are other K award recipients in obtaining follow-on NIH research funding due to their career experience or (2) less successful due to the competing demands of other projects. By analyzing follow-on NIH research awards and interview data, we found that OppNet K18 award recipients were at least as successful as were other K award recipients in obtaining follow-on funding and may have been more successful by certain measures. K18 awards produce their outcomes with a lower investment per investigator than do other K awards, suggesting continued or enhanced use of the mechanism.

Gender Differences in Receipt of National Institutes of Health R01 Grants Among Junior Faculty at an Academic Medical Center: The Role of Connectivity, Rank, and Research Productivity

OBJECTIVE

To determine whether there were gender differences in likelihood of receiving a first National Institutes of Health (NIH) R01 award among 5445 instructors and assistant professors at Harvard Medical School (HMS).

MATERIALS AND METHODS

Data on R01 award principal investigators were obtained from NIH ExPORTER and linked with faculty data. Using Cox proportional hazard regression, we examined the association of gender with receipt of first R01 award between 2008 and 2015 accounting for demographics, research productivity metrics, and professional characteristics.

RESULTS

Compared to males, females had fewer publications, lower h-index, smaller coauthor networks and were less likely to be assistant professors (p < 0.0001). Four hundred and thirteen of 5445 faculty (7.6%) received their first R01 award during the study period. There was no gender difference in receipt of R01 awards in age-adjusted (hazard ratio [HR]: 0.87, 95% confidence interval [CI]: 0.70-1.08) or multivariable-adjusted models (HR: 1.07, 95% CI: 0.86-1.34). Compared to white males, there was a nonsignificant 10%, 18%, and 30% lower rate of R01 receipt among white, Asian or Pacific Islander, and underrepresented minority females, respectively. These differences were eliminated in the multivariable-adjusted model. Network reach, age, HMS start year, h-index, academic rank, previous K award, terminal degree, and HMS training were all significant predictors of receiving an R01 award.

CONCLUSIONS

A relatively small proportion of HMS junior faculty obtained their first NIH R01 award during the study period. There was no significant gender difference in likelihood of award. However, we are unable to distinguish faculty that never applied from those who applied and were not successful.

Factors that influence career progression among postdoctoral clinical academics: a scoping review of the literature

BACKGROUND

The future of academic medicine is uncertain. Concerns regarding the future availability of qualified and willing trainee clinical academics have been raised worldwide. Of significant concern is our failure to retain postdoctoral trainee clinical academics, who are likely to be our next generation of leaders in scientific discovery.

OBJECTIVES

To review the literature about factors that may influence postdoctoral career progression in early career clinical academics.

DESIGN

This study employed a scoping review method. Three reviewers separately assessed whether the articles found fit the inclusion criteria.

DATA SOURCES

PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science and Google Scholar (1991-2015).

ARTICLE SELECTION

The review encompassed a broad search of English language studies published anytime up to November 2015. All articles were eligible for inclusion, including research papers employing either quantitative or qualitative methods, as well as editorials and other summary articles.

DATA EXTRACTION

Data extracted from included publications were charted according to author(s), sample population, study design, key findings, country of origin and year of publication.

RESULTS

Our review identified 6 key influences: intrinsic motivation, work-life balance, inclusiveness, work environment, mentorship and availability of funding. It also detected significant gaps within the literature about these influences.

CONCLUSIONS

Three key steps are proposed to help support postdoctoral trainee clinical academics. These focus on ensuring that researchers feel encouraged in their workplace, involved in collaborative dialogue with key stakeholders and able to access reliable information regarding their chosen career pathway. Finally, we highlight recommendations for future research.