Resumen
Small research grants can provide a funding source for novice physician-scientists during residency or as junior investigators. However, it is unknown if emergency medicine (EM) grant recipients benefit beyond the immediate monetary infusion of these modest awards (<5,000). To better understand the role of small grants in EM research, we evaluated the scholarly productivity of previous recipients of a Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) research grant and compared the portion of career researchers among the recipients to all certified Canadian EM physicians. A 27-question online survey was developed and distributed to the recipients to ask about their CAEP grant project and research career productivity. Of the 96 grant recipients, 56 completed the survey (58% response rate). Respondents reported a high rate of project completion (95%) and publication success. Many recipients (85%) held an academic appointment, and 47% had formal research positions. In Canada, 2.5% of all certified EM physicians (n=3,699) and 9.5% of EM specialists (n=978) are currently involved in research. CAEP grant recipients are 5-fold and nearly 20-fold more likely than the population of certified EM specialists or all certified EM physicians, respectively, to be involved in research. As there are few funding sources in Canada for small EM-related projects, the finding that a considerably great proportion of physicians who are funded by these small grants (versus the entire pool of EM-trained physicians) commit to research as part of their career suggests that the funds may be meaningful beyond both the monetary support and project completion. The results of our evaluation indicate that modest research grants can support physician-researchers early in their careers, and many of these researchers continue with future research success, including research appointments, funding, and scholarly publications.
| Idioma original | English |
|---|---|
| Páginas (desde-hasta) | 329-338 |
| Número de páginas | 10 |
| Publicación | Research Evaluation |
| Volumen | 25 |
| N.º | 3 |
| DOI | |
| Estado | Published - jul. 2016 |
Nota bibliográfica
Funding Information:Small research grants can provide a funding source for novice physician-scientists during residency or as junior investigators. However, it is unknown if emergency medicine (EM) grant recipients benefit beyond the immediate monetary infusion of these modest awards (<$5,000). To better understand the role of small grants in EM research, we evaluated the scholarly productivity of previous recipients of a Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) research grant and compared the portion of career researchers among the recipients to all certified Canadian EM physicians. A 27-question online survey was developed and distributed to the recipients to ask about their CAEP grant project and research career productivity. Of the 96 grant recipients, 56 completed the survey (58% response rate). Respondents reported a high rate of project completion (95%) and publication success. Many recipients (85%) held an academic appointment, and 47% had formal research positions. In Canada, 2.5% of all certified EM physicians (n = 3,699) and 9.5% of EM specialists (n = 978) are currently involved in research. CAEP grant recipients are 5-fold and nearly 20-fold more likely than the population of certified EM specialists or all certified EM physicians, respectively, to be involved in research. As there are few funding sources in Canada for small EM-related projects, the finding that a considerably great proportion of physicians who are funded by these small grants (versus the entire pool of EM-trained physicians) commit to research as part of their career suggests that the funds may be meaningful beyond both the monetary support and project completion. The results of our evaluation indicate that modest research grants can support physician-researchers early in their careers, and many of these researchers continue with future research success, including research appointments, funding, and scholarly publications.
Funding Information:
The primary objective of any competition is to identify the top performers and rank them. With respect to a research grant funding competition, the proposal serves as the tool to identify the most promising projects that will contribute to advances in a particular field. In the case of small grants for junior researchers, a secondary objective is to support the training of developing scientists through the process of writing and submitting a grant proposal, conducting the research work (if funds are awarded), and disseminating the knowledge via publications and conference presentations. With a validated peer-review process, the outputs of a funded grant project (including publications) would in theory be directly related to the peer-review merit score received by a grant proposal. However, it is unclear if current protocols for research grant competitions select the best combinations of project and researcher leading to both scholarly output and high-quality training (in the case of junior researchers). A Cochrane review in 2007 included 10 studies that examined the effectiveness of peer-review procedures on successful grant proposals. The authors found a lack of comparative studies assessing the actual effect of peer-review procedures on the quality of funded research (Demicheli and Di Pietrantonj, 2007). In another retrospective analysis of peer-reviewed grant applications, Gallo et al. found only moderate correlation between the scores awarded through the review and the total time-adjusted citation output of funded projects (Gallo et al., 2014). Others have reported that the calculation of scholarly output is insufficient to measure success (Langfeldt, Bloch and Sivertsen, 2015), which may be due in part to the lack of a consistent definition of research success.
Funding Information:
To investigate the benefits of small grants on project completion and subsequent research productivity in EM in Canada, we evaluated all past recipients of a Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) research grant. Since 1996, CAEP has held an annual research grant competition for its members to promote and support research, especially among junior investigators (Bawden et al. 2010). It is the only national source of funding dedicated to providing small grants to EM researchers (Vaillancourt et al., 2015). This competition offers an opportunity for EM physician-scientists to pursue research and share their findings with the community. Grant proposals from all areas of EM research are reviewed by a dedicated team of experts during the annual grant competition, and top-ranked proposals are further evaluated by the CAEP Research Committee. Criteria including relevance, originality, methodological quality, feasibility, and impact are considered. Up to five research grants are awarded each year, with a maximum of $5,000 CAD awarded to each recipient.
Funding Information:
An online survey was administered by e-mail to all past recipients of CAEP research grants funded from program inception in 1996 through 2014. Past recipients were identified through a manual review of CAEP’s records, which included project titles, amount of funding awarded (i.e., itemized project budgets), and the e-mail addresses. The survey was identified as being administered by the CAEP Research Committee. Past grant recipients were sent a cover letter explaining the goal of the study, how they were identified, and assuring them that the survey was confidential and their participation would be anonymous. Owing to the voluntary nature of the study, informed consent was considered to be implied by completion of the survey. This study was approved by the Nova Scotia Health Authority Research Ethics Board in Halifax, Nova Scotia, on 11 August 2014 (reference number: CDHA-RS/2015-101).
Funding Information:
Career point of grant recipient, n (%) Resident Clinical fellow Research fellow Junior staff (≤5 years post-MD) Senior staff (>5 years post-MD) Years of experience at grant receipt Mean (σ) Median (range) Residency program, n (%) RCPS (EM) RCPS (PEM) CFPC (EM) RCPS (Peds) FACEP FAAEM Fellowship, n (%) Research fellowship Graduate degree, n (%)c All degrees MSc (epidemiology) MSc MPH PhD Med MBA MPHE
Funding Information:
Table 2. Projects funded by CAEP research grants from 1996 to 2014
Funding Information:
aThere were nine non-responders to this question about current roles, so the denominator is 47. bOne resident/clinical fellow grant recipient did not respond to the funding questions, although currently involved in research projects.
Funding Information:
This study represents the second formal evaluation of EM research projects funded through the annual CAEP Research Grants Competition. The first evaluation of this research grant program was conducted on recipients from 1996 to 2005 (Bawden et al. 2010). Using an email-based survey, Bawden et al. collected data from 58 prior grant recipients, most of whom were residents (36%) and senior researchers (28%). This study found that of those recipients who completed their research project (51/58; 88%), 76% (39/51) had manuscripts either published or in press and 92% (47/51) had presented their research at a national or international conference. When asked their opinion about the impact of the research funding in their career, most grant recipients felt the CAEP funding contributed to the completion of their project and their ability to secure additional funding, and that EM physicians need designated research funding.
Funding Information:
In the long term, within this cohort of junior researchers funded by small grants, the majority attained academic appointments (85%) and nearly half had research appointments (47%). In comparison, about 9.5% of all EM specialists in Canada are researchers, and only 2.5% of all EM-trained physicians are researchers. The portion of the grant recipients working on research is actually substantially higher than the 47% that reported having official research positions. Of the grant recipients, 88% were currently doing research, with 77% having at least partial funding for their projects. This is nearly twice as many as the number with official research positions, so the portion of the small grant recipients with a career including EM research may actually be much higher.
Publisher Copyright:
© The Author 2016.
ASJC Scopus Subject Areas
- Education
- Library and Information Sciences