Creation of a comprehensive training and career development approach to increase the number of neurosurgeons supported by National Institutes of Health funding

2020 ◽  
pp. 1-9
Author(s):  
Russell R. Lonser ◽  
Luke G. F. Smith ◽  
Michael Tennekoon ◽  
Kavon P. Rezai-Zadeh ◽  
Jeffrey G. Ojemann ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Career Development ◽  
Fold Increase ◽  
Early Career ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Academic Departments ◽  
Research Education ◽  
Grant Support ◽  
Development Approach ◽  
Comprehensive Programs ◽  
Nih Funding

OBJECTIVETo increase the number of independent National Institutes of Health (NIH)–funded neurosurgeons and to enhance neurosurgery research, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) developed two national comprehensive programs (R25 [established 2009] for residents/fellows and K12 [2013] for early-career neurosurgical faculty) in consultation with neurosurgical leaders and academic departments to support in-training and early-career neurosurgeons. The authors assessed the effectiveness of these NINDS-initiated programs to increase the number of independent NIH-funded neurosurgeon-scientists and grow NIH neurosurgery research funding.METHODSNIH funding data for faculty and clinical department funding were derived from the NIH, academic departments, and Blue Ridge Institute of Medical Research databases from 2006 to 2019.RESULTSBetween 2009 and 2019, the NINDS R25 funded 87 neurosurgical residents. Fifty-three (61%) have completed the award and training, and 39 (74%) are in academic practice. Compared to neurosurgeons who did not receive R25 funding, R25 awardees were twice as successful (64% vs 31%) in obtaining K-series awards and received the K-series award in a significantly shorter period of time after training (25.2 ± 10.1 months vs 53.9 ± 23.0 months; p < 0.004). Between 2013 and 2019, the NINDS K12 has supported 19 neurosurgeons. Thirteen (68%) have finished their K12 support and all (100%) have applied for federal funding. Eleven (85%) have obtained major individual NIH grant support. Since the establishment of these two programs, the number of unique neurosurgeons supported by either individual (R01 or DP-series) or collaborative (U- or P-series) NIH grants increased from 36 to 82 (a 2.3-fold increase). Overall, NIH funding to clinical neurological surgery departments between 2006 and 2019 increased from $66.9 million to $157.3 million (a 2.2-fold increase).CONCLUSIONSTargeted research education and career development programs initiated by the NINDS led to a rapid and dramatic increase in the number of NIH-funded neurosurgeon-scientists and total NIH neurosurgery department funding.

Neurosurgery Research and Education Foundation funding conversion to National Institutes of Health funding

2021 ◽  
pp. 1-8
Author(s):  
Luke G. F. Smith ◽  
E. Antonio Chiocca ◽  
Gregory J. Zipfel ◽  
Adam G. F. Smith ◽  
Michael W. Groff ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Critical Care ◽  
Peripheral Nerve ◽  
Early Career ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Research Fellowship ◽  
Training Research ◽  
Research And Education ◽  
Nih Funding ◽  
The Impact ◽  
To Receive

OBJECTIVE The Neurosurgery Research and Education Foundation (NREF) provides research support for in-training and early career neurosurgeon-scientists. To define the impact of this funding, the authors assessed the success of NREF awardees in obtaining subsequent National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. METHODS NREF in-training (Research Fellowship [RF] for residents) and early career awards/awardees (Van Wagenen Fellowship [VW] and Young Clinician Investigator [YCI] award for neurosurgery faculty) were analyzed. NIH funding was defined by individual awardees using the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting tool (1985–2014). RESULTS Between 1985 and 2014, 207 unique awardees were supported by 218 NREF awards ($9.84 million [M] in funding), including 117 RF ($6.02 M), 32 VW ($1.68 M), and 69 YCI ($2.65 M) awards. Subspecialty funding included neuro-oncology (79 awards; 36% of RF, VW, and YCI awards), functional (53 awards; 24%), vascular (37 awards; 17%), spine (22 awards; 10%), pediatrics (18 awards; 8%), trauma/critical care (5 awards; 2%), and peripheral nerve (4 awards; 2%). These awardees went on to receive $353.90 M in NIH funding that resulted in an overall NREF/NIH funding ratio of 36.0:1 (in dollars). YCI awardees most frequently obtained later NIH funding (65%; $287.27 M), followed by VW (56%; $41.10 M) and RF (31%; $106.59 M) awardees. YCI awardees had the highest NREF/NIH funding ratio (108.6:1), followed by VW (24.4:1) and RF (17.7:1) awardees. Subspecialty awardees who went on to obtain NIH funding included vascular (19 awardees; 51% of vascular NREF awards), neuro-oncology (40 awardees; 51%), pediatrics (9 awardees; 50%), functional (25 awardees; 47%), peripheral nerve (1 awardees; 25%), trauma/critical care (2 awardees; 20%), and spine (2 awardees; 9%) awardees. Subspecialty NREF/NIH funding ratios were 56.2:1 for vascular, 53.0:1 for neuro-oncology, 47.6:1 for pediatrics, 34.1:1 for functional, 22.2:1 for trauma/critical care, 9.5:1 for peripheral nerve, and 0.4:1 for spine. Individuals with 2 NREF awards achieved a higher NREF/NIH funding ratio (83.3:1) compared to those with 1 award (29.1:1). CONCLUSIONS In-training and early career NREF grant awardees are an excellent investment, as a significant portion of these awardees go on to obtain NIH funding. Moreover, there is a potent multiplicative impact of NREF funding converted to NIH funding that is related to award type and subspecialty.

scholarly journals Assessing National Institutes of Health funding and scholarly impact in neurological surgery

2014 ◽  
Vol 120 (1) ◽  
pp. 191-196 ◽  
Author(s):  
Peter F. Svider ◽  
Qasim Husain ◽  
Adam J. Folbe ◽  
William T. Couldwell ◽  
James K. Liu ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Strong Relationship ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Academic Rank ◽  
Grant Support ◽  
Scholarly Impact ◽  
Terminal Degree ◽  
The Mean ◽  
Promotion Process ◽  
Neurological Surgery ◽  
Nih Funding

Object Research productivity is increasingly important in academic neurological surgery and can be measured through a variety of methods, such as publications, objective bibliometrics, and securing external grant support. The authors' objectives were to determine whether there is an association between scholarly impact, as measured by the h index, and successful National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant funding awarded to faculty in neurological surgery departments. Methods Primary investigators receiving National Institutes of Health (NIH) awards from Fiscal Years 2011–2013 were organized by academic rank, terminal degree, and their h index, as calculated from the Scopus database. These data were also obtained for nonfunded faculty from 15 randomly selected departments for comparison, and the average h index for each group was calculated. Results National Institutes of Health–funded faculty had higher average h indices than their nonfunded colleagues (23.6 vs 10.8, p < 0.0001), a finding that persisted upon controlling for academic rank. The mean h index increased with successive academic rank in both cohorts; greater funding totals were seen with successive academic position (Kruskal-Wallis, p < 0.05). National Institutes of Health–funded MDs had higher h indices than their PhD colleagues (p = 0.04), although funding levels did not differ significantly. There was a trend of increasing h index with higher NIH-funding ranges (p < 0.05). Conclusions The authors' findings demonstrate a strong relationship between scholarly impact and securing NIH funding among faculty in academic neurosurgical departments. Faculty receiving a greater amount of funding tended to have a higher h index. Mean scholarly impact, as measured by the h index, increased with successive academic rank among both NIH-funded and nonfunded faculty, suggesting that this bibliometric may have utility as an adjunct in the academic appointment and promotion process in academic neurological surgery.

NIH Funding Ranked “Per Capita”: An Alternative Method for Assessing Research Productivity

2019 ◽  
Vol 42 (1) ◽  
pp. 57-60
Author(s):  
Kristine M. Kulage ◽  
Joshua R. Massei ◽  
Elaine L. Larson
Keyword(s):  
Faculty Member ◽  
Research Productivity ◽  
The United States ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Alternative Method ◽  
Schools Of Nursing ◽  
Per Capita ◽  
Nih Funding ◽  
Member School ◽  
Total Average

Ordinal rankings of schools of nursing by research funding in total dollars awarded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is a common metric for demonstrating research productivity; however, these data are not based on the number of doctorally prepared faculty eligible to apply for funding. Therefore, we examined an alternative method for measuring research productivity which accounts for size differences in schools: NIH funding ranked “per capita.” We extracted data on total average funding and compared them with average funding secured per faculty member across top-ranked schools of nursing in the United States from 2013 to 2017. When examining data by number of doctorally prepared faculty, 4 of 12 (33%) schools that ranked lower in total average funding ranked higher in average funding per faculty member. School size is an important but neglected factor in current funding rankings; therefore, we encourage schools to use multiple approaches to track their research productivity.

Professional values, job satisfaction, career development, and intent to stay

2016 ◽  
Vol 24 (6) ◽  
pp. 675-685 ◽  
Author(s):  
Susan Yarbrough ◽  
Pam Martin ◽  
Danita Alfred ◽  
Charleen McNeill
Keyword(s):  
United States ◽  
Job Satisfaction ◽  
Career Development ◽  
Intent To Stay ◽  
The United States ◽  
Early Career ◽  
Professional Values ◽  
Convenience Sample ◽  
Hospital System ◽  
The Future

Background: Hospitals are experiencing an estimated 16.5% turnover rate of registered nurses costing from $44,380 - $63,400 per nurse—an estimated $4.21 to $6.02 million financial loss annually for hospitals in the United States of America. Attrition of all nurses is costly. Most past research has focused on the new graduate nurse with little focus on the mid-career nurse. Attrition of mid-career nurses is a loss for the profession now and into the future. Research objective: The purpose of the study was to explore relationships of professional values orientation, career development, job satisfaction, and intent to stay in recently hired mid-career and early-career nurses in a large hospital system. Research design: A descriptive correlational study of personal and professional factors on job satisfaction and retention was conducted. Participants and research context: A convenience sample of nurses from a mid-sized hospital in a metropolitan area in the Southwestern United States was recruited via in-house email. Sixty-seven nurses met the eligibility criteria and completed survey documents. Ethical considerations: Institutional Review Board approval was obtained from both the university and hospital system. Findings: Findings indicated a strong correlation between professional values and career development and that both job satisfaction and career development correlated positively with retention. Discussion: Newly hired mid-career nurses scored higher on job satisfaction and planned to remain in their jobs. This is important because their expertise and leadership are necessary to sustain the profession into the future. Conclusion: Nurse managers should be aware that when nurses perceive value conflicts, retention might be adversely affected. The practice environment stimulates nurses to consider whether to remain on the job or look for other opportunities.

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

2021 ◽  
Vol 266 ◽  
pp. 6-12
Author(s):  
Mary Smithson ◽  
M. Chandler McLeod ◽  
Dan I. Chu ◽  
Greg Kennedy ◽  
Melanie Morris ◽  
...  
Keyword(s):  
Career Development ◽  
Nih Funding ◽  
Over Time

scholarly journals Factors Associated With Success of Clinician–Researchers Receiving Career Development Awards From the National Institutes of Health

2017 ◽  
Vol 92 (10) ◽  
pp. 1429-1439 ◽  
Author(s):  
Reshma Jagsi ◽  
Kent A. Griffith ◽  
Rochelle D. Jones ◽  
Abigail Stewart ◽  
Peter A. Ubel
Keyword(s):  
Career Development ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Factors Associated

scholarly journals Why Age and Aging Research Matters—for Early-Career Researchers

2020 ◽  
Vol 4 (Supplement_1) ◽  
pp. 827-828
Author(s):  
Marie Bernard
Keyword(s):  
Older Persons ◽  
Junior Faculty ◽  
Health Department ◽  
Early Career ◽  
National Institutes Of Health ◽  
Aging Research ◽  
Department Of Health ◽  
Research Findings ◽  
Funding Mechanisms ◽  
Research Resources

Abstract The National Institute on Aging (NIA) at the National Institutes of Health, Department of Health and Human Services, supports biomedical and behavioral research with a life-span focus. There is attention to understanding basic processes of aging, improving prevention and treatment of diseases and conditions common in later years, improving the health of older persons, as well as a focus on Alzheimer’s disease and related dementias. The NIA also supports the training and career development of scientists focusing on aging research and the development of research resources. The symposium, meant for junior faculty and emerging scholars, will provide an update on the latest research findings from the NIA followed by a brief update on funding mechanisms. An opportunity is provided to meet and consult with NIA extramural staff.

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document