HOME HELP FEEDBACK SUBSCRIPTIONS ARCHIVE SEARCH TABLE OF CONTENTS		QUICK SEARCH:   [advanced] Author: Keyword(s): Year:  Vol:  Page:

This Article Figures Only Full Text Full Text (PDF) Supplemental data: Appendix In Brief Table 2: clarification TRACK Discussion: Submit a Comment TRACK Discussion: View Comments Alert me when this article is cited Alert me when TRACK Comments are posted Alert me if a correction is posted Services Email this article to a friend Similar articles in this journal Similar articles in PubMed Download to citation manager Citing Articles Citing Articles via HighWire Google Scholar Articles by Lucan, S. C. Articles by Bazemore, A. W. PubMed PubMed Citation Articles by Lucan, S. C. Articles by Bazemore, A. W.

Off the Roadmap? Family Medicine’s Grant Funding and Committee Representation at NIH

¹ Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
² Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
³ Leonard Davis Institute of Health Economics, University of Pennsylvania, Philadelphia
⁴ Robert Graham Center, Policy Studies in Family Medicine and Primary Care, Washington, DC

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: Sean C. Lucan, MD, MPH, Robert Wood Johnson Clinical Scholars Program, University of Pennsylvania, 423 Guardian Dr Blockley Hall, 13th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6021, sean.lucan{at}uphs.upenn.edu

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.

Key Words: National Institutes of Health • family practice • family physicians • research • advisory committees •

This article has been cited by other articles:

				K. C. Stange In This Issue: Cohort Studies Ann. Fam. Med, November 1, 2008; 6(6): 482 - 482. [Full Text] [PDF]

TRACK Comments: