National Institutes of Health Funding in Obstetrics and Gynecology: Analysis of R01 Grants by Degree and Gender

Berg, Erich J.; Ashurst, John

doi:10.7759/cureus.8170

Cited by 6 publications

(3 citation statements)

References 10 publications

(21 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Another limiting factor in the advancement of women to high academic positions is the amount of third-party funding. In disciplines with many men physicians such as radiology and surgery, studies showed lower chances of women postdoctoral applicants for NIH funding [ 25 , 26 ], whereas, in the FP-dominated fields gynecology and pediatrics, the percentage of accepted applications from women was higher [ 27 ]. This suggests that the acceptance rate may also be influenced by the absolute number of applications from each gender.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender differences and cooperation in medical authorships - an analysis of the recent ten years in five key medical disciplines

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background Career prospects in academic medicine are strongly linked to scientific authorship and this marker has been widely used as an indicator of gender equity in academia. However, direct comparisons of medical disciplines regarding their proportion of female physicians (FP) in different countries are missing. This study examines the gender parity and gender cooperation using first authorships (FA) and senior authorships (SA) of scientific publications in five medical disciplines and six different OECD countries over a 10-year time-trend. Methods Articles from three high-impact journals in each of the medical discipline radiology, urology, surgery, gynecology, and pediatrics from the years 2007/8 and 2017/18 were retrospectively reviewed. The gender and affiliation location of the FA and SA of original research articles and reviews were assigned and compared with the proportion of in each discipline for the United States of America, Canada, United Kingdom, France, Germany, and Japan. Mantel-Haenszel test and multinomial logistic regression models were used to calculate differences in proportions of women authors and FP and to assess trends and proportions of FA and SA. Results 30,803 articles were evaluated. Equally, with rising proportions of FP in all disciplines, the number of women authors increased across years. The shares of women FAs were either significantly higher (urology/surgery/gynecology) or balanced (pediatrics/radiology) compared to the proportion of FP. In contrast, the shares of women SA were balanced only in disciplines with a low proportion of FP (urology and surgery) and otherwise reduced. Women same-gender cooperation was as common as men same-gender cooperation and preferred over a women-led mixed gender cooperation in disciplines where this seemed to be practicable due to the high proportions of FP. Conclusion In contrast to FA, a significant disparity persists in SA, particularly in disciplines with a high proportion of FP. The discrepancy between FA and SA may reflect, among others, dropout from an academic career in early or mid-academic levels, for example, due to structural inequality; together with the findings on gender preference in authorship collaborations, this may inform future strategies for promoting equal career advancement for women physicians.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender differences and cooperation in medical authorships - an analysis of the recent ten years in five key medical disciplines

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…The increase in average funding in current and constant dollars for the R01-equivalent grant awarded to women also increased slightly more than their male counterparts. A study revealed that women with an MD degree were awarded larger NIH R01 grants in obstetrics and gynecology than males with an MD degree between 2008 and 2017 [ 20 ].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Gender Differences in Research Project Grants and R01 Grants at the National Institutes of Health

Chaudhary

Sattar

Safdar

et al. 2021

Cureus

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The National Institutes of Health (NIH), which is the world's largest funding source for research, offers various types of competitive grants depending on the duration, research type, and budget. The Research Project Grant (RPG) is the oldest mechanism for grant allocation that is used by the NIH. In this study, we explored the gender trends of NIH RPGs and R01 grants over the last two decades. MethodsBy utilizing the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool (RePORT), data for gender were extracted, and the percentage of women as RPGs Investigators, R01-equivalent grant including R01 type 1 and type 2 grant awardees, from 1998 to 2019 were tabulated. The absolute change was calculated. ResultsFrom 1998 to 2019, the percentage of female RPG awardees has increased. However, the success rates for female RPG applicants have decreased during the same period. The funding and success rates for new R01 awards have been similar for both men and women, but women have been less successful at the renewal of R01-equivalent awards. ConclusionGender disparity exists in awardees of higher RPGs, including the R01 award. This highlights the need for further actions to ensure gender parity in grant allocations at the NIH.

show abstract

“…Recent data have shown that very few osteopathic physicians serve as either the first or senior author in published original research manuscripts in emergency medicine, obstetrics and gynecology, pediatrics, and neurosurgery [1][2][3][4]. Additionally, no osteopathic physicians have been awarded a National Institutes of Health (NIH) R01 grant in emergency medicine, family medicine, general surgery, or obstetrics and gynecology in the previous decade [5][6][7][8]. Although we do not anticipate substantial differences in grants awarded to internal medicine investigators, no data currently exist on the scholarly activity between osteopathic and allopathic physicians within the specialty of internal medicine.…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

National Institutes of Health Funding in Internal Medicine: Analysis of Physicians Receiving an R01 Grant Between 2008 and 2017

Berg¹,

Santarelli

Ashurst

2021

Cureus

Self Cite

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Introduction As the world’s largest funding source for biomedical research, the National Institutes of Health (NIH) supports physician-scientists with a discipline-specific R01 grant. Recently, scholarly activity disparities regarding investigator degree and gender have been highlighted in the medical literature among allopathic and osteopathic investigators of various medical backgrounds. We aimed to assess trends in internal medicine NIH R01 grants over the past decade. Methodology Internal medicine R01 funding was retrospectively obtained from a centralized online NIH database encompassing 2008 through 2017. Principal investigators (PIs) were then categorized by gender and academic degree(s). Two-way analysis of variance was used to analyze NIH grant funding trends over the time period studied. Results A total of 5,089 NIH R01s were awarded to internal medicine PIs, with an average value per grant of $469,270. Awardees were predominantly male (71.5%, 3,639/5,089). Most awards were issued to PIs with an MD degree (62.4%, 3,173/5,089), followed by PhD degree (36.3%, 1,845/5,089). DOs accounted for five awards over the time period studied (0.15%). MDs were awarded higher funding than PhDs ($466,494 and $421,576, p < 0.001), and females were awarded higher amounts than males ($462,771 and $444,868, p < 0.001). Investigators who held a second degree received more funding than PIs with a single degree ($476,693 and $439,693, p < 0.001). Conclusion In the decade under investigation, both gender and degree disparities existed within NIH R01 funding for PIs in the field of internal medicine, and osteopathic representation accounted for a paucity of R01 funding.

show abstract

National Institutes of Health Funding in Obstetrics and Gynecology: Analysis of R01 Grants by Degree and Gender

Abstract: Berg et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License CC-BY 4.0., which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.

Cited by 6 publications

References 10 publications

Gender differences and cooperation in medical authorships - an analysis of the recent ten years in five key medical disciplines

Gender differences and cooperation in medical authorships - an analysis of the recent ten years in five key medical disciplines

Gender Differences in Research Project Grants and R01 Grants at the National Institutes of Health

National Institutes of Health Funding in Internal Medicine: Analysis of Physicians Receiving an R01 Grant Between 2008 and 2017

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About