Sean C Lucan1, Robert L Phillips, Andrew W Bazemore. 1. Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia 19104-6021, USA. sean.lucan@uphs.upenn.edu
Abstract
PURPOSE: Family medicine is challenged to develop its own research infrastructure and to inform and contribute to a national translational-research agenda. Toward these ends, understanding family medicine's engagement with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is important. METHODS: We descriptively analyzed NIH grants to family medicine from 2002 through 2006 and the current NIH advisory committee memberships. RESULTS: Grants (and dollars) awarded to departments of family medicine increased from 89 ($25.6 million) in 2002, to 154 ($44.6 million) in 2006. These values represented only 0.20% (0.15% for dollars) and 0.33% (0.22% for dollars), respectively, of total NIH awards. Nearly 75% of family medicine grants came from just 6 of NIH's grant-funding 24 institutes and centers. Although having disproportionately fewer grant continuations (62% vs 72%) and R awards (68% vs 74%)-particularly R01 awards (53% vs 84%)-relative to NIH grantees overall, family medicine earned proportionately more new (28% vs 21%) and K awards (25% vs 9%) and had more physician principal investigators (52% vs 15%). Ten of the nation's 132 departments of family medicine (7.6%) earned almost 50% of all family medicine awards. Representatives from family medicine were on 6.4% of NIH advisory committees (0.38% of all members); family physicians were on 2.7% (0.16% of members). CONCLUSIONS: Departments of family medicine, and family physicians in particular, receive a miniscule proportion of NIH grant funding and have correspondingly minimal representation on standing NIH advisory committees. Family medicine's engagement at the NIH remains near well-documented historic lows, undermining family medicine's potential for translating medical knowledge into community practice, and advancing knowledge to improve health care and health for the US population as a whole.
PURPOSE: Family medicine is challenged to develop its own research infrastructure and to inform and contribute to a national translational-research agenda. Toward these ends, understanding family medicine's engagement with the National Institutes of Health (NIH) is important. METHODS: We descriptively analyzed NIH grants to family medicine from 2002 through 2006 and the current NIH advisory committee memberships. RESULTS: Grants (and dollars) awarded to departments of family medicine increased from 89 ($25.6 million) in 2002, to 154 ($44.6 million) in 2006. These values represented only 0.20% (0.15% for dollars) and 0.33% (0.22% for dollars), respectively, of total NIH awards. Nearly 75% of family medicine grants came from just 6 of NIH's grant-funding 24 institutes and centers. Although having disproportionately fewer grant continuations (62% vs 72%) and R awards (68% vs 74%)-particularly R01 awards (53% vs 84%)-relative to NIH grantees overall, family medicine earned proportionately more new (28% vs 21%) and K awards (25% vs 9%) and had more physician principal investigators (52% vs 15%). Ten of the nation's 132 departments of family medicine (7.6%) earned almost 50% of all family medicine awards. Representatives from family medicine were on 6.4% of NIH advisory committees (0.38% of all members); family physicians were on 2.7% (0.16% of members). CONCLUSIONS: Departments of family medicine, and family physicians in particular, receive a miniscule proportion of NIH grant funding and have correspondingly minimal representation on standing NIH advisory committees. Family medicine's engagement at the NIH remains near well-documented historic lows, undermining family medicine's potential for translating medical knowledge into community practice, and advancing knowledge to improve health care and health for the US population as a whole.
Authors: James C Martin; Robert F Avant; Marjorie A Bowman; John R Bucholtz; John R Dickinson; Kenneth L Evans; Larry A Green; Douglas E Henley; Warren A Jones; Samuel C Matheny; Janice E Nevin; Sandra L Panther; James C Puffer; Richard G Roberts; Denise V Rodgers; Roger A Sherwood; Kurt C Stange; Cynthia W Weber Journal: Ann Fam Med Date: 2004 Mar-Apr Impact factor: 5.166
Authors: Anne H Gaglioti; James J Werner; George Rust; Lyle J Fagnan; Anne Victoria Neale Journal: J Am Board Fam Med Date: 2016 Sep-Oct Impact factor: 2.657
Authors: Felicity Goodyear-Smith; Andrew Bazemore; Megan Coffman; Richard D W Fortier; Amanda Howe; Michael Kidd; Robert Phillips; Katherine Rouleau; Chris van Weel Journal: BMJ Glob Health Date: 2019-08-16