Off the roadmap? Family medicine's grant funding and committee representation at NIH

Sean C. Lucan, Robert L. Phillips, Andrew W. Bazemore

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

29 Citations (Scopus)

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.

Original languageEnglish (US)
Pages (from-to)534-542
Number of pages9
JournalAnnals of Family Medicine
Volume6
Issue number6
DOIs
StatePublished - Nov 2008
Externally publishedYes

Fingerprint

Organized Financing
National Institutes of Health (U.S.)
Medicine
Advisory Committees
Family Physicians
Committee Membership
Translational Medical Research
Research Personnel

Keywords

  • Advisory committees
  • Family physicians
  • Family practice
  • National Institutes of Health
  • Research

ASJC Scopus subject areas

  • Family Practice

Cite this

Off the roadmap? Family medicine's grant funding and committee representation at NIH. / Lucan, Sean C.; Phillips, Robert L.; Bazemore, Andrew W.

In: Annals of Family Medicine, Vol. 6, No. 6, 11.2008, p. 534-542.

Research output: Contribution to journalArticle

Lucan, Sean C. ; Phillips, Robert L. ; Bazemore, Andrew W. / Off the roadmap? Family medicine's grant funding and committee representation at NIH. In: Annals of Family Medicine. 2008 ; Vol. 6, No. 6. pp. 534-542.
@article{75d106e9b6244761828e37f3aa9f17ab,
title = "Off the roadmap? Family medicine's grant funding and committee representation at NIH",
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.",
keywords = "Advisory committees, Family physicians, Family practice, National Institutes of Health, Research",
author = "Lucan, {Sean C.} and Phillips, {Robert L.} and Bazemore, {Andrew W.}",
year = "2008",
month = "11",
doi = "10.1370/afm.911",
language = "English (US)",
volume = "6",
pages = "534--542",
journal = "Annals of Family Medicine",
issn = "1544-1709",
publisher = "Annals of Family Medicine, Inc",
number = "6",

}

TY - JOUR

T1 - Off the roadmap? Family medicine's grant funding and committee representation at NIH

AU - Lucan, Sean C.

AU - Phillips, Robert L.

AU - Bazemore, Andrew W.

PY - 2008/11

Y1 - 2008/11

N2 - 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.

AB - 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.

KW - Advisory committees

KW - Family physicians

KW - Family practice

KW - National Institutes of Health

KW - Research

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/record.url?scp=56649097268&partnerID=8YFLogxK

UR - http://www.scopus.com/inward/citedby.url?scp=56649097268&partnerID=8YFLogxK

U2 - 10.1370/afm.911

DO - 10.1370/afm.911

M3 - Article

VL - 6

SP - 534

EP - 542

JO - Annals of Family Medicine

JF - Annals of Family Medicine

SN - 1544-1709

IS - 6

ER -