scholarly journals Hydrocephalus research funding from the National Institutes of Health: a 10-year perspective

2014 ◽  
Vol 13 (2) ◽  
pp. 145-150 ◽  
Author(s):  
Paul Gross ◽  
Gavin T. Reed ◽  
Rachel Engelmann ◽  
John R. W. Kestle
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Small Business ◽  
Research Funding ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Innovation Research ◽  
Device Development ◽  
Funding Sources ◽  
Health Care Burden ◽  
Business Technology ◽  
Observation Period

Object Funding of hydrocephalus research is important to the advancement of the field. The goal of this paper is to describe the funding of hydrocephalus research from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) over a recent 10-year period. Methods The NIH online database RePORT (Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools) was searched using the key word “hydrocephalus.” Studies were sorted by relevance to hydrocephalus. The authors analyzed funding by institute, grant type, and scientific approach over time. Results Over $54 million was awarded to 59 grantees for 66 unique hydrocephalus proposals from 48 institutions from 2002 to 2011. The largest sources of funding were the National Institute of Neurological Disease and Stroke and the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Of the total, $22 million went to clinical trials, $15 million to basic science, and $10 million to joint ventures with small business (Small Business Innovation Research or Small Business Technology Transfer). Annual funding varied from $2.3 to $8.1 million and steadily increased in the second half of the observation period. The number of new grants also went from 15 in the first 5 years to 27 in the second 5 years. A large portion of the funding has been for clinical trials. Funding for shunt-device development grew substantially. Support for training of hydrocephalus investigators has been low. Conclusions Hydrocephalus research funding is low compared with that for other conditions of similar health care burden. In addition to NIH applications, researchers should pursue other funding sources. Small business collaborations appear to present an opportunity for appropriate projects.

Be an NIH Reviewer: Contribute to Multidisciplinary Research

2017 ◽  
Vol 40 (3) ◽  
pp. 367-374
Author(s):  
Melinda L. Jenkins
Keyword(s):  
Small Business ◽  
Review Process ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Small Business Innovation Research ◽  
Multidisciplinary Research ◽  
Scientific Review ◽  
Business Innovation ◽  
Innovation Research ◽  
Study Section ◽  
Nursing Expertise

One of the best ways to contribute to multidisciplinary research and to improve your own knowledge of the review process at the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is to serve as a peer reviewer for research, traineeship, and small business innovation research proposals. Proactive targeted outreach to Scientific Review Officers (SROs) at NIH will increase your chances to become a reviewer. Reviewers with nursing expertise are especially welcome as multidisciplinary research is becoming more prevalent. Steps to identify a likely study section, contact the correct SRO, and review responsibly are described in this article, written by an experienced NIH review officer.

Inappropriateness Penalty, Desirability Premium: What Do More Certifications Actually Signal?

2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Lauren Lanahan ◽  
Daniel Erian Armanios ◽  
Amol M. Joshi
Keyword(s):  
Technology Transfer ◽  
Small Business ◽  
New Technologies ◽  
Performance Outcomes ◽  
Business Innovation ◽  
Innovation Research ◽  
Self Interest ◽  
And Performance ◽  
Signal Divergence ◽  
Business Technology

Prevailing theory argues that more certifications increase performance. However, emerging empirical evidence implies that obtaining more certifications may actually decrease performance. How do we reconcile this tension? Practically speaking, why would ventures seek additional certifications in light of these recently identified risks? To address this gap between existing theory and recent empirics, we look more closely at ventures’ activities and performance outcomes after they receive their first certification. We posit that different patterns of certification reflect different forms of experimentation. In particular, ventures may be willing to experiment in ways that incur an inappropriateness penalty for the chance to gain a subsequent desirability premium if their experiments succeed. Inappropriateness means that certifications signal divergence from accepted market norms and standards. Desirability means that certifications signal activities that are in the perceived self-interest of the potential audience. We hypothesize that certifications reflecting broad experimentation incur initial inappropriateness penalties, yet when successful, they are more likely to lead to breakthroughs that generate desirability premia. We find support for this idea through an empirical analysis drawing from a sample of 7,440 U.S. ventures that receive one or more Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) or Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) grants to commercialize new technologies. This study advances institutional theory of certification to better account not only for its benefits but also for its costs.

Funding Patient-Reported Outcomes in Cancer Clinical Trials

2007 ◽  
Vol 25 (32) ◽  
pp. 5100-5105 ◽  
Author(s):  
Carol M. Moinpour ◽  
Andrea M. Denicoff ◽  
Deborah Watkins Bruner ◽  
Alice B. Kornblith ◽  
Stephanie R. Land ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Clinical Trials ◽  
Clinical Trial Data ◽  
Patient Reported Outcome ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Cancer Clinical Trials ◽  
Cooperative Groups ◽  
Funding Sources ◽  
Community Clinical Oncology Program ◽  
Patient Reported ◽  
Cost Components

We surveyed four cooperative groups to identify current funding sources for the collection and analysis effort associated with the inclusion of patient-reported outcome (PRO) data in cancer clinical trials. Survey questions included what proportion of staff effort was funded through the Cancer Therapy Evaluation Program (CTEP) and the Community Clinical Oncology Program (CCOP) grants. In addition, the groups were asked to what extent outside funding was solicited to cover an underfunded PRO effort (eg, the pharmaceutical industry, foundations, or National Institutes of Health grants). All four groups noted the challenge of making limited resources cover a number of trial responsibilities. PRO effort is usually bundled with effort required for all clinical trial data. There is variation in the use of the CTEP and CCOP grants to fund PRO research. The groups differed with respect to both the types and amount of outside funding used. This survey focused on funding sources for the conduct of PRO research in cooperative group trials; it did not assess the specific cost components associated with collecting and analyzing these data. In general, the costs for conducting PRO research have been bundled with other study costs because in most cases, the PRO has been considered an integral component of the trial. However, these data also suggest that PRO research has required the use of outside funding sources in the four surveyed cooperative groups and that PRO economic issues require attention if we are to continue the inclusion of these outcomes in cancer clinical trials.

Making NASA More Business Friendly: A Small Business Innovation Research and Small Business Technology Transfer Case Study

New Space ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 7 (3) ◽  
pp. 151-178
Author(s):  
Jennifer L. Gustetic ◽  
David Askey ◽  
Zachary James Burkland ◽  
Anna Bui Cordrey ◽  
Marnie Feinberg ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Technology Transfer ◽  
Small Business ◽  
Small Business Innovation Research ◽  
Business Innovation ◽  
Innovation Research ◽  
Transfer Case ◽  
Small Business Innovation ◽  
Business Technology
Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document