Article Figures & Data
Figures
- Figure 1.
Chartered NIH advisory committees with active standing memberships.
— = included groups; - - - = excluded groups; BSC = board of scientific counselors, IRG = integrated or initial review group, NAC = national advisory council or board, NIH = National Institutes of Health, PAC = program advisory committee, SEP = special emphasis panel.
aSpecial emphasis panels have no standing (or reported) memberships.
- Figure 2.
Active National Institutes of Health advisory committees and members.
FMs=family medicine doctors, FPs=family physicians.
Tables
- Table 1.
Types of Advisory Committees at the National Institutes of Health and Their Functions
Type Function Integrated or initial review group (IRG) Provides the first level of peer review for grant applications and contract proposals Special emphasis panel (SEP) Like IRGs, provides a first level of peer review. Unlike IRG, has no standing memberships; members are designated to serve for individual meetings rather than appointed for fixed terms National advisory council or board (NAC) Performs the second level of peer review and offers advice on policy and program development for institutes and centers as well as oversight of intramural research Board of scientific counselors (BSC) Reviews and evaluates investigators and research programs of intramural laboratories Program advisory committee (PAC) Provides advice on specific research programs and future research needs and opportunities - Table 2.
NIH Grants Awarded to Departments of Family Medicine From 2002 to 2006, and Distributions of Family Medicine Totals by Number of Grants
Family Medicine and NIH Totals and Percentages Grants 2002 Grants 2003 Grants 2004 Grants 2005 Grants 2006 Total Grants 2002–2006 K = research career programs; NCCAM = National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine; NCI = National Cancer Institute; NHLBI = National Heart Lung and Blood Institute; NIA = National Institute on Aging; NIAAA = National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism; NICHD = National Institute of Child Health and Human Development; NIDA = National Institute on Drug Abuse; NIDDK = National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases; NIEHS=National Institute of Environmental health Sciences; NIH = National Institutes of Health; NIMH = National Institute of Mental Health; R = research projects; Univ = university. Note: Percentages are columns percentages and may not sum to 100% because of rounding error; only distributions for number of grants are presented—distributions for grant dollars were essentially similar and available in the Supplemental Appendix, available online at http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/content/full/6/6/534/DC1. a Includes 11 institutes or centers for a total of 21 awarding grants to department of family medicine over the 5 years; b Includes U (cooperative agreements), P (research program projects and centers), T (training programs), G (resource programs), and S (research-related programs); c Physician = medical degree (MD or DO) only, scientist = doctor of philosophy (PhD), doctor of science (ScD, DSc), or doctor of public health (DrPH) only; other includes principal investigators with only bachelor’s- or master’s-level training, but no doctoral degrees; d Competing continuations, supplements, and change of grantee or training institution; e Department at a top-20 institution for number of NIH grant awards; f Department at a top-10 institution for number of NIH grant awards; g Includes 53 additional academic institutions. Family medicine total grant dollars received, $ (in millions) 25.6 37.9 34.8 43.5 44.6 187 NIH total grant dollars awarded, $ (in millions) 16,900 18,500 19,700 20,300 20,200 95,300 % of total NIH grant dollars awarded to family medicine 0.15 0.21 0.18 0.22 0.22 0.20 Family medicine total grants received, No. 89 118 131 146 154 638 NIH total grants awarded, No. 43,520 46,081 47,464 47,345 46,797 231,207 % of total NIH grants awarded to family medicine 0.20 0.26 0.28 0.31 0.33 0.28 Family medicine total received No. of grants By institute or center, % NCI 21 27 25 27 29 26 NCCAM 10 11 10 12 12 11 NHLBI 8 10 10 10 13 11 NIMH 8 11 11 10 7 9 NIDA 13 8 10 8 8 9 NIDDK 3 7 11 8 5 7 NICHD 6 7 5 6 7 6 NIA 8 7 7 5 5 6 NIAAA 9 3 5 5 5 5 NIEHS 2 1 2 1 3 2 Othera 11 8 5 7 8 8 By activity code, % R 71 75 72 63 61 68 K 21 19 24 29 29 25 Otherb 8 5 4 8 10 7 By principal investigator type,c % Physician 48 51 56 54 49 52 Scientist 37 36 32 35 39 36 Physician-scientist 12 9 11 10 9 10 Other 2 4 2 1 3 2 By application type, % Noncompeting continuation 65 54 63 61 68 62 New 20 36 28 31 25 28 Otherd 15 10 9 8 7 9 By department of family medicine, % Univ of California, San Diegoe 7 13 11 11 12 11 Univ of Wisconsin 9 3 6 5 6 6 Univ of Michiganf 4 4 5 4 4 4 Univ of Minnesota–Twin Cities 6 5 4 3 4 4 Univ of Arizona 0 0 2 5 9 4 Univ of New Mexico 4 4 5 3 3 4 Univ of Washingtonf 4 3 5 4 2 4 Case Westerne 4 3 4 3 3 3 Univ of Pennsylvaniaf 1 5 3 3 4 3 Univ of North Carolina, Chapel Hille 3 5 4 3 2 3 Otherg 56 53 53 53 52 53 - Table 3.
Distributions of Grant Funding and Advisory Committee Membership by NIH Institutes and Centers
Grants Awarded in 2006 No. of Advisory Committee Members June 2007 (Advisory Committee Type) Institute, Center, or Office (Abbreviation) % of Total Grants to Family Medicine % of Total Grant Dollars to Family Medicine Family Physicians Other Family Medicine Doctors IRG = Integrated or initial review group; NAC = national advisory council and board; NIH = National Institutes of Health; PAC = program advisory committee. Note: Percentages are columns percentages and may not sum to 100% because of rounding error; – indicates 0 values. a CC, CIT, and CSR do not award grants. b One family medicine member at NCI was committee chair, all other family medicine members on all other committees were general members. c The 9 family physician members served on 8 committees, and 12 other family medicine doctors served on 11 committees. Clinical Centera (CC) – – – – Center for Information Technologya (CIT) – – – – Center for Scientific Reviewa (CSR) – – 4(IRG) 6 (IRG) Fogarty International Center (FIC) 1 1 – 1 (NAC) National Center for Complementary and Alternative Medicine (NCCAM) 12 13 – – National Cancer Institute (NCI) 29 33 – 2 (IRG)b National Center on Minority Health and Health Disparities (NCMHD) 1 3 – – National Center for Research Resources (NCRR) 2 2 – – National Eye Institute (NEI) – – – – National Human Genome Research Institute (NHGRI) – – – – National Heart Lung and Blood Institute (NHLBI) 13 9 – – National Institute on Aging (NIA) 5 4 – – National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA) 5 6 – – National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases (NIAID) – – – – National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS) 1 2 – – National Institute of Biomedical Imaging and Bioengineering (NIBIB) – – – – National Institute of Child Health and Human Development (NICHD) 7 3 – – National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA) 8 6 1 (IRG) 2 (IRG) National Institute on Deafness and other Communication Disorders (NIDCD) – – – – National Institute of Dental and Craniofacial Research – – – – National Institute of Diabetes and Digestive and Kidney Diseases (NIDDK) 5 6 – – National Institute on Environmental Health Sciences (NIEHS) 3 5 – – National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS) – – – – National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) 7 7 1 (IRG) 1 (IRG) National Institute of Neurologic Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) – – – – National Institute of Nursing Research (NINR) 1 0 1 (NAC) – National Library of Medicine (NLM) 2 1 1 (IRG) – Office of the Director (OD) – – 1 (PAC) – Totals 100 100 9c 12c
Supplemental Appendix
Supplemental Appendix. NIH Grants Awarded to Departments of Family Medicine From 2002 to 2006, and Distributions of Family Medicine Totals by Grant Dollars
Files in this Data Supplement:
- Supplemental data: Appendix - PDF file, 2 pages, 128 KB
The Article in Brief
Off the Roadmap? Family Medicine's Grant Funding and Committee Representation at NIH
Sean C. Lucan , and colleagues
Background Although family medicine has a strong framework for clinical practice, it has long struggled to develop its research base. The National Institutes of Health (NIH), the leading source of support for medical research in the United States, does not focus on primary care research, and new programs relevant to primary care may not fit well with family medicine. This study aims to determine the numbers of family physicians serving on NIH advisory committees, and assess the level and distribution of NIH grants to departments of family medicine from 2002-2006.
What This Study Found Departments of family medicine and family physicians in particular receive an extremely small amount of NIH grant funding and have correspondingly little representation on standing NIH advisory committees.
Implications
- Family medicine's low involvement with NIH weakens the potential for translating medical knowledge into community practice and advancing knowledge to improve health care and health for the US population.
- To strengthen family medicine's connection to NIH, the authors suggest increased research training, learning from family medicine departments that have successful relationships with NIH, establishing research partnerships, and encouraging practicing family physicians to serve on NIH advisory committee public seats, while family medicine researchers serve on scientific seats.
Table 2 clairification
Stylistic changes were made to Table 2 after the article had been sent to the printer. The print version of Table 2 therefore departs from the online version of Table 2. The data displayed within the table have not changed.
Jump to section
Related Articles
Cited By...
- Impact of Financial Incentives and Department Size on Scholarly Activity Output
- Family medicine journals endorsement of reporting guidelines and clinical trial registration: a cross-sectional analysis
- Past Is Prologue: The Essential Role of Advocacy in Shaping the Future of Family Medicine Research
- Increasing Family Medicine Research Capacity at the University of Minnesota: Publication Trends and Research Culture
- Family Medicine: Finding Its Way on the Federal Research Roadmap
- Strategies for research capacity building by family physicians in primary healthcare: a scoping review protocol
- Toward a Unified and Collaborative Future: Creating a Strategic Plan for Family Medicine Research
- Research gaps in the organisation of primary healthcare in low-income and middle-income countries and ways to address them: a mixed-methods approach
- Unfinished Business: The Role of Research in Family Medicine
- Advancing the Science of Implementation in Primary Health Care
- Practice-based Research Networks (PBRNs) Bridging the Gaps between Communities, Funders, and Policymakers
- Federal Research Funding for Family Medicine: Highly Concentrated, with Decreasing New Investigator Awards
- Lost in Translation: NIH Funding for Family Medicine Research Remains Limited
- Section of Researchers' Blueprint for Family Medicine Research Success 2012-2017: Laying the foundation for our future
- Plan directeur pour la reussite de la recherche en medecine familiale 2012-2017 de la Section des chercheurs: Etablir les assises de notre avenir
- Uncloaking Family Medicine Research: So Much To Know, So Little Time . . .
- A Small Percentage of Family Physicians Report Time Devoted to Research
- NAPCRG PUTS THE INCREASE OF PRIMARY CARE RESEARCH FUNDING AT THE TOP OF THE PRIORITY LIST
- THE CHALLENGE TO BUILD RESEARCH CAPACITY IN FAMILY MEDICINE: IS OUR DISCIPLINE READY?
- In This Issue: Cohort Studies