UNASSIGNED: The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between research activity and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding status of the United States (US) academic ophthalmologists.
UNASSIGNED: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis of bibliometric data was conducted. The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Reports (rePORTER) website was utilized to identify ophthalmology departments in the US that received NIH funding. Affiliated faculty from these institutions were then identified using NIH rePORTER and institutional websites. H-index was calculated using the Scopus database, and the NIH iCite tool was used to determine the Relative Citation Ratio (RCR). The h-index and w-RCR quantified research productivity, while m-RCR measured research impact.
UNASSIGNED: Data on 2688 faculty members from 66 departments we re identified, of which 21% were NIH-funded. Faculty members who received NIH-funding had significantly greater research productivity and impact as measured by h-index (32.5 vs 16.6; p < .001), m-RCR (2.2 vs 1.6; p < .001), and w-RCR (147.2 vs 70.1; p < .001) than their non-funded peers. When stratified by academic rank, NIH-funded faculty still had significantly higher h-index (16.1 vs 7.9; p < .001), m-RCR (2.2 vs 1.4; p < .001), and w-RCR (63.2 vs 61.8; p < .001) than non-funded peers. A similar trend was observed among non-tenured faculty members.
UNASSIGNED: NIH funding is associated with higher research productivity and impact among US academic ophthalmologists as measured by h-index and RCR, which suggests that NIH funding may be a critical factor in enhancing scholarly contributions of ophthalmologists.  These findings underscore the importance of continued investment in NIH funding to foster high-impact research within the field of ophthalmology.

Funders of research have an opportunity to advance health equity and social justice by incorporating principles of diversity, equity, inclusion, and justice (DEIJ) in their approach to grantmaking. We conducted a pragmatic review to identify opportunities for grantmakers in the health care sector to integrate DEIJ in their funding activities. The resulting framework discusses recommendations within three phases as follows: (1) Organizational Context (i.e., initiate DEIJ efforts within the grantmaking organization, invest in community partnerships, and establish DEIJ goals), (2) Grantmaking Process (i.e., DEIJ-specific practices related to grant design, application, proposal review processes, and support for grantees), and (3) Assessment of Process and Outcomes (i.e., measurement, evaluation, and dissemination to maximize impact of DEIJ efforts). Throughout all grantmaking phases, it is critical to partner with and engage individuals and communities that have been historically marginalized in health care and research. In this article, we describe how adoption of framework practices can leverage grantmaking to advance DEIJ for communities, researchers, and projects.

High-throughput omics technologies have become valuable tools for systems science research and clinical management of sepsis. This article analyzes sepsis research using omics technologies in the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom from 1990 to May 2023 using bibliometric data from the Web of Science database. Using VOSviewer for network analysis, we examined the distribution patterns, funding characteristics, and collaborations among the states, noting trends of convergence and divergence. The analysis included 2078 articles, revealing an increasing rate of publications on sepsis research using omics approaches. The United Kingdom\'s research output is notably high, contributing 28.3% of the total research from the EU and United Kingdom combined. Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Italy together account for 56.9% of the publications from the EU member states. The United States is the leading international collaborator, particularly with the United Kingdom, followed by Germany and France. The EU-15 countries have significantly more publication outputs in this domain with growing but limited inclusion of the newer members of the EU. We suggest that the role of EU member states and the United Kingdom in sepsis research using omics technologies can be advanced by facilitating high-value, technology-driven health research, fostering collaboration, convergence, and equity in global health and biomedical research.

BACKGROUND: James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnerships (PSPs) produce \'Top 10\' lists of health and care research priorities through a structured, shared decision-making process with patients or service users, carers and health or care professionals who identify questions that are most important to them. To date, over 150 PSPs in different areas of health and care have published research priorities. Some PSPs share similar priorities, which could be combined, promoted and addressed through collaborative research to increase value and reduce research waste.
OBJECTIVE: The aim of this study was to identify overarching themes common to JLA PSP priorities across different areas of health and care.
METHODS: Our analysis included \'Top 10\' research priorities produced by UK-based JLA PSPs between 2016 and 2020. The priorities were coded deductively by the Health Research Classification System (HRCS) health category and research activity. We then carried out online workshops with patients, service users and carers to generate new codes not already captured by this framework. Within each code, multistakeholder inductive thematic analysis was used to identify overarching themes, defined as encompassing priorities from three or more PSPs covering two or more health categories. We used codesign methods to produce an interactive tool for end users to navigate the overarching themes.
RESULTS: Five hundred and fifteen research priorities from 51 PSPs were included in our analysis. The priorities together encompassed 20 of 21 HRCS health categories, the most common being \'generic health relevance\' (22%), \'mental health\' (18%) and \'musculoskeletal\' (14%). We identified 89 overarching themes and subthemes, which we organised into a hierarchy with seven top-level themes: quality of life, caregivers and families, causes and prevention, screening and diagnosis, treatment and management, services and systems and social influences and impacts.
CONCLUSIONS: There are many overarching themes common to research priorities across multiple areas of health and care. To facilitate new research and research funding, we have developed an interactive tool to help researchers, funders and patients or service users to explore these priority topics. This is freely available to download online.
UNASSIGNED: Patients or service users and carers were involved throughout the study, including deciding the aims, designing the study, analysing priorities to identify themes, interpreting and reporting the findings.

暂无摘要。

暂无摘要。

Background: When health-related research funding agencies choose to fund research, they balance a number of competing issues: costs, stakeholder views and potential benefits. The REWARD Alliance, and the related Lancet-REWARD Campaign, question whether those decisions are yielding all the value they could. Methods: A group of health-related research funding agencies, organisations that represent health-related research funding agencies and those that inform and set health-related-research funding policy from around the world have come together since 2016 to share, learn, collaborate and influence emerging practice. This group meets under the name of the Ensuring Value in Research Funders\' Forum (EViR Funders\' Forum). The EViR Funders\' Forum worked together to develop a set of ten Guiding Principles, that if funders adhered to would reduce research waste and ensure value in research. Results: The EViR Funders\' Forum has previously agreed and published a Consensus Statement. The Forum has agreed on a set of ten Guiding Principles to help health-research funders to maximise the value of research by ensuring that: research priorities are justifiable; the design, conduct and analysis of research minimise bias; regulation and management are proportionate to risks; methods and findings are accessible in full; and findings are appropriately and effectively disseminated and used. Conclusions: When setting research funding policy, we must balance multiple stakeholders\' needs and expectations. When funders do this well, they maximise the probability of benefits to society from the research they support - when funders do this badly, they passively allow or actively contribute to research waste. These challenges must be resolved by funders either working together or in conjunction with other actors in the research ecosystem.

Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, and attributes that a particular society considers appropriate for men and women based on assumptions about biological sex. It also operates as a major social organizing principle that confers unequal power, status, and resources to men and women, with direct consequences for health. Historic patriarchal and misogynistic beliefs and values are reinforced through social institutions, including health science, which reify gender inequities. This commentary examines two key domains in which the social organization and institutionalization of gender in scientific research affect the conduct of women\'s health research and, by extension, women\'s health outcomes. These domains are: 1) decisions about which topics are prioritized, researched, and funded and 2) the dissemination of research findings. Using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as a case study to illustrate broader patterns in scientific research, we present evidence of gender-based inequities in what is prioritized, deemed fundable, and disseminated, and how this affects knowledge production and attention to women\'s health. We highlight efforts and progress made by the NIH and call for additional attention to further address gender-based inequities and their impact on women\'s health research. We conclude with a call for critical social science analyses-ideally supported by the NIH-of the social organization of health science research to identify points of intervention for redressing deep-seated obstacles to advancing research on women\'s health.

OBJECTIVE: The number of cerebrovascular (CV) surgeons has grown with the rise of endovascular neurosurgery. However, it is unclear whether the number of CV surgeon-scientists has concomitantly increased. With increasing numbers of CV neurosurgeons in the US workforce, the authors analyzed associated changes in National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Neurosurgery Research and Education Foundation (NREF) funding trends for CV surgeons over time.
METHODS: Publicly available data were collected on currently practicing academic CV surgeons in the US. Inflation-adjusted NIH funding between 2009 and 2021 was surveyed using NIH RePORTER and Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research data. The K12 Neurosurgeon Research Career Development Program and NREF grant data were queried for CV-focused grants. Pearson R correlation, chi-square analysis, and the Mann-Whitney U-test were used for statistical analysis.
RESULTS: From 2009 to 2021, NIH funding increased: in total (p = 0.0318), to neurosurgeons (p < 0.0001), to CV research projects (p < 0.0001), and to CV surgeons (p = 0.0018). During this time period, there has been an increase in the total number of CV surgeons (p < 0.0001), the number of NIH-funded CV surgeons (p = 0.0034), and the percentage of CV surgeons with NIH funding (p = 0.370). Additionally, active NIH grant dollars per CV surgeon (p = 0.0398) and the number of NIH grants per CV surgeon (p = 0.4257) have increased. Nevertheless, CV surgeons have been awarded a decreasing proportion of the overall pool of neurosurgeon-awarded NIH grants during this time period (p = 0.3095). In addition, there has been a significant decrease in the number of K08, K12, and K23 career development awards granted to CV surgeons during this time period (p = 0.0024). There was also a significant decline in the proportion of K12 (p = 0.0044) and downtrend in early-career NREF (p = 0.8978) grant applications and grants awarded during this time period. Finally, NIH-funded CV surgeons were more likely to have completed residency less recently (p = 0.001) and less likely to have completed an endovascular fellowship (p = 0.044) as compared with non-NIH-funded CV surgeons.
CONCLUSIONS: The number of CV surgeons is increasing over time. While there has been a concomitant increase in the number of NIH-funded CV surgeons and the number of NIH grants awarded per CV surgeon in the past 12 years, there has also been a significant decrease in CV surgeons with K08, K12, and K23 career development awards and a downtrend in CV-focused K12 and early-career NREF applications and awarded grants. The latter findings suggest that the pipeline for future NIH-funded CV surgeons may be in decline.

Introduction. While racial NIH funding disparities have been identified, little is known about the link between community demographics of institutions and NIH funding. We sought to evaluate the association between institution zip code characteristics and NIH funding. Methods. We linked the 2011-2021 NIH RePORTER database to Census data. We calculated the funding to each institution and stratified institutions into funding quartiles. We defined out independent variables as institution ZIP code level race/ethnicity (White, Black, and Hispanic), and socioeconomic status (household income, high school graduation rate, and unemployment rate). We used ordinal regression models to evaluate the association between institution ZIP code characteristics and grant funding quartile. Results. We included 731,548 grants (US$271,495,839,744) from 3,971 ZIP codes. The funding amounts in millions of U.S. dollars for the funding quartiles were fourth - 0.25, third - 1.1, second - 3.8, first - 43.5. Using ordinal regression, we found an association between increasing unemployment rate (OR = 1.03 [1.02, 1.05]), increasing high school graduation rate (OR = 3.6 [1.6, 8.4]), decreasing proportion of White people (OR = 0.4 [0.3, 0.5]), increasing proportion of Black people (OR = 1.3 [0.9, 1.8]), and increasing proportion of Hispanic/Latine people (OR = 2.5 [1.7, 3.5]) and higher grant funding quartiles. We found no association between household income and grant funding quartile. Conclusion. We found ZIP code demographics to be inadequate for evaluating NIH funding disparities, and the association between institution ZIP code demographics and investigator demographics is unclear. To evaluate and improve grant funding disparities, better grant recipient data accessibility and transparency are needed.