背景:NIH为解决常见女性疾病的基本生殖健康问题提供的资金仍然很少,部分原因是妇产科医生申请补助金的成功率较低。
目的:评估由美国国立卫生研究院(NIH)儿童健康与人类发展妇女生殖健康研究(WRHR)K12职业发展奖(CDA)支持的个人的学术生产力,为推进妇产科医生医生科学家的职业生涯而创建。
方法:我们对在2015年6月30日之前完成至少2年WRHR训练并进行至少5年随访的个体进行了一项队列研究。最早的培训开始日期是1998年12月1日。来自公共数据来源的主要结果(NIH报告,PubMed,iCite)是:1)总数和R01NIH赠款作为PI;2)总数,第一作者和最后作者出版物;3)通过相对引用率(RCR)衡量的中位数和最高出版物影响因子。电子邮件调查子队列的次要结果是:研究资助总数,联邦政府资助的赠款,以及作为共同研究者的NIH赠款数量;机构晋升和学术任命,国家和NIH领导角色;职业和导师满意度。在毕业后5、10和15年记录结果,并使用WRHR完成日期将汇总的匿名数据分为3组:2005年6月30日,2010年和2015年。评估了时间趋势。结果按性别和5年周期资助的机构进行分层(1-2vs3-4)。分析使用Fisher精确检验或Pearson卡方检验,和Mantel-Haenszel趋势测试。
结果:按毕业完成日期划分的队列分布(N=178)为:2005年6月30日或之前[57(32%)];2005年7月1日-2010年6月30日[60(34%)]和2010年7月1日-2015年6月30日[61(34%)]。大多数是女性[112(64%)]。大多数人接受过母体胎儿医学培训[53(30%)],其次是没有研究金[50(28%)]。在178人中,72人(40%)作为PI获得了额外的NIH资助,45人(25%)接受了至少一个R01,23人(13%)接受了2-5个R01。学者比例的平均估计为52(31%),第一作者出版物>10,66位(39%)的最后作者出版物>10位,108位(63%)的出版物>25位。最高RCR评分中位数为8.07[IQR4.20,15.16]。有121(71%)的RCR>5,这表明在类似研究领域的其他NIH资助的科学家的出版影响超过5倍。没有性别差异,观察到机构或时间趋势。在整个队列中,69(45.7%)对调查做出了回应:大多数自我确定为女性[50(73%)]和白人[51(74%)]。
结论:我们的研究结果表明,机构K奖提供的基础设施是妇产科医生的有利CDA机制,一群以女性为主的外科医生.它可以纠正按性别分列的NIH资助中已知的不平等现象。
National Institutes of Health funding to address basic reproductive health for common female conditions remains disproportionately low, in part because of low success rates of grant applications by obstetrician-gynecologists.
This study aimed to evaluate the scholarly productivity of individuals supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Women\'s Reproductive Health Research K12 career development award, created to advance careers of obstetrician-gynecologist physician-scientists.
We performed a cohort study of individuals who completed at least 2 years of Women\'s Reproductive Health Research training by June 30, 2015, and had at least 5-year follow-up. Earliest training start date was December 1, 1998. Primary outcomes from public data sources (National Institutes of Health RePORTER, PubMed, iCite) were (1) number of total and R01 National Institutes of Health grants as principal investigator; (2) numbers of total and first and last author publications; and (3) median and highest publication impact factor measured by the relative citation ratio. Secondary outcomes from an email survey subcohort were total number of research grants, federally funded grants, and number of National Institutes of Health grants as coinvestigator; institutional promotions and academic appointments, national and National Institutes of Health leadership roles; and career and mentorship satisfaction. Outcomes were recorded at 5, 10, and 15 years postgraduation, and aggregate anonymized data were divided into 3 groups using Women\'s Reproductive Health Research completion dates: June 30 of 2005, 2010, and 2015. Temporal trends were assessed. Results were stratified by gender, number of awarded grant cycles (1-2 vs 3-4), and specialty type. Analyses used Fisher exact or Pearson chi-square tests, and Mantel-Haenszel tests of trend.
The distribution of the cohort (N=178) by graduation completion date was: on or before June 30, 2005 (57 [32%]); July 1, 2005 to June 30, 2010 (60 [34%]); and July 1, 2010 to June 30, 2015 (61 [34%]). Most participants were female (112 [64%]) and maternal-fetal medicine trained (53 [30%]), followed by no fellowship (50 [28%]). Of the 178 participants, 72 (40%) received additional National Institutes of Health funding as a principal investigator, 45 (25%) received at least 1 R01, and 23 (13%) received 2 to 5 R01s. There were 52 (31%) scholars with >10 first author publications, 66 (39%) with >10 last author publications, and 108 (63%) with ≥25 publications. The highest relative citation ratio was a median of 8.07 (interquartile range, 4.20-15.16). There were 121 (71%) scholars with relative citation ratio ≥5, indicating >5-fold greater publication impact than that of other National Institutes of Health-funded scientists in similar areas of research. No differences by gender, institution, or temporal trends were observed. Of the full cohort, 69 (45.7%) responded to the survey; most self-identified as women (50 [73%]) and White (51 [74%]).
Our findings suggest that the infrastructure provided by an institutional K award is an advantageous career development award mechanism for obstetrician-gynecologists, a group of predominantly women surgeons. It may serve as a corrective for the known inequities in National Institutes of Health funding by gender.