0
We're unable to sign you in at this time. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
We were able to sign you in, but your subscription(s) could not be found. Please try again in a few minutes.
Retry
There may be a problem with your account. Please contact the AMA Service Center to resolve this issue.
Contact the AMA Service Center:
Telephone: 1 (800) 262-2350 or 1 (312) 670-7827  *   Email: subscriptions@jamanetwork.com
Error Message ......
Original Investigation |

Trends in National Institutes of Health Funding of Principal Investigators in Dermatology Research by Academic Degree and Sex

Michelle Y. Cheng, MD1; Andrea Sukhov, BA2; Hawa Sultani, BS1; Kyoungmi Kim, PhD3; Emanual Maverakis, MD1
[+] Author Affiliations
1Department of Dermatology, University of California–Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento
2medical student at University of California–Davis School of Medicine, Sacramento
3Division of Biostatistics, Department of Public Health Sciences, University of California–Davis, Davis
JAMA Dermatol. 2016;152(8):883-888. doi:10.1001/jamadermatol.2016.0271.
Text Size: A A A
Published online

Importance  National Institutes of Health (NIH) grants are becoming increasingly competitive in the academic research arena. Identifying NIH funding disparities is an important step in improving academic diversity.

Objective  To examine recent NIH funding trends in dermatology.

Design, Setting, and Participants  Retrospective study with linear regression analysis and repeated-measures analysis of variance of all NIH grants awarded to departments of dermatology from fiscal year 2009 to 2014. Funding data were exported from the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results. Publication data were drawn from Scopus. All NIH-funded principal investigators in dermatology were categorized by their academic degree and sex.

Main Outcomes and Measures  The NIH funding trends were compared by investigator degree (MD, PhD, or MD/PhD) and sex.

Results  A total of 1292 NIH-funded grants were awarded to dermatology research from fiscal year 2009 through 2014. Adjusted NIH funding for dermatologic research diminished by 4.6% from $67.3 million in 2009 to $64.2 million in 2014, with a nadir of $58.6 million in 2013. Funding for the NIH’s Research Project Grant Program (R01) decreased by 21.0% from $43.9 million to $34.7 million during this period. The dollar amount of NIH funding significantly trended down for investigators with an MD degree by $1.35 million per year from $23.6 million in 2009 to $18.4 million in 2014 (P = .02) while there was no significant change in NIH funding for MD/PhD (from $17.6 million in 2009 to $19.8 million in 2014; P = .44) and PhD investigators (from $26.1 million in 2009 to $25.9 million in 2014; P = .74). Similarly, the total dollar amount of R01 grants awarded to principal investigators with only an MD degree trended down by $1.4 million per year from $13.2 million in 2009 to $6.0 million in 2014 (P < .001). The number of female investigators with NIH grants in dermatology trended down significantly compared with the trend of their male counterparts (from 49 women in 2009 to 43 women in 2014 vs from 84 men in 2009 to 97 men in 2014; P = .04).

Conclusions and Relevance  There is a downward trend in NIH funding for female and MD-only dermatology investigators. Departmental support and junior faculty mentorship for women and MD investigators is crucial for maintaining their presence in NIH-funded dermatology research.

Figures in this Article

Figures

Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 1.
National Institutes of Health (NIH) Funding Trends by Degree for Dermatology From Fiscal Year 2009 to 2014

A, The dollar amount of NIH grants awarded to investigators with MD degrees has decreased significantly (β = −1.35, R2 = 0.81). Meanwhile, the trends for MD/PhD and PhD investigators are not significant (β = 0.25, R2 = 0.15 vs β = −0.24, R2 = 0.03, respectively). The slopes of all 3 trends were not significantly different (P = .08). B, The total R01 dollar amount for MD investigators has decreased significantly (β = −1.35, R2 = 0.98). Concurrently, the trends of R01 dollar amounts awarded to MD/PhD and PhD investigators are not significant (β = 0.25, R2 = 0.15 vs β = −0.24, R2 = 0.03, respectively). The slopes of all 3 trends are significantly different (P = .001).

Graphic Jump Location
Place holder to copy figure label and caption
Figure 2.
National Institutes of Health (NIH) Funding Trends by Sex for Dermatology From Fiscal Year 2009 to 2014

A, The number of male principal investigators (PIs) with NIH awards in dermatology has been trending up (β = 1.69, R2 = 0.45). Contrarily, the number of female PIs has been trending down (β = −1.14, R2 = 0.69). The difference in the trends is statistically significant (P = .04). B, The number of male and female PIs with R01s has no significant trend from fiscal year 2009 to 2014 (β = 0.4, R2 = 0.02 vs β = 0.06, R2 = 0.004, respectively).

Graphic Jump Location

Tables

References

Correspondence

CME
Also Meets CME requirements for:
Browse CME for all U.S. States
Accreditation Information
The American Medical Association is accredited by the Accreditation Council for Continuing Medical Education to provide continuing medical education for physicians. The AMA designates this journal-based CME activity for a maximum of 1 AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM per course. Physicians should claim only the credit commensurate with the extent of their participation in the activity. Physicians who complete the CME course and score at least 80% correct on the quiz are eligible for AMA PRA Category 1 CreditTM.
Note: You must get at least of the answers correct to pass this quiz.
Please click the checkbox indicating that you have read the full article in order to submit your answers.
Your answers have been saved for later.
You have not filled in all the answers to complete this quiz
The following questions were not answered:
Sorry, you have unsuccessfully completed this CME quiz with a score of
The following questions were not answered correctly:
Commitment to Change (optional):
Indicate what change(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.
Your quiz results:
The filled radio buttons indicate your responses. The preferred responses are highlighted
For CME Course: A Proposed Model for Initial Assessment and Management of Acute Heart Failure Syndromes
Indicate what changes(s) you will implement in your practice, if any, based on this CME course.

Multimedia

Some tools below are only available to our subscribers or users with an online account.

1,576 Views
0 Citations
×

Sign in

Purchase Options

• Buy this article
• Subscribe to the journal
• Rent this article ?

Related Content

Customize your page view by dragging & repositioning the boxes below.

See Also...
Articles Related By Topic
Related Collections
PubMed Articles
Jobs
brightcove.createExperiences();