Scripps Mercy Hospital, San Diego, California, USA.
J Am Coll Cardiol. 2013 Jan 22;61(3):275-81. doi: 10.1016/j.jacc.2012.10.013. Epub 2012 Dec 5.
The aim of this study was to determine the extent, type (e.g., staff, equipment), and sources of funding for published cardiovascular research.
Important cardiovascular research is often performed without direct financial support. The degree to which medical research is conducted on an unfunded basis remains uncertain.
We sent an electronic survey (Survey Monkey) to 938 corresponding authors who published papers in the Journal of the American College of Cardiology from 2007 through 2009. The data sought included the authors' characteristics (e.g., age, institution, type of research), funding, sources of funding, and types of support for their research.
The response rate was 41% (388 of 938). The percentage of authors who were fully funded was 26%, 44.1% were partially funded, and those without any direct funding amounted to 30%. Most funding came from government (41.8%) and industry (35.1%), whereas institutional, foundation, association, philanthropy, and other grants contributed the remaining 23.1%. Funded authors received supplies (43.6%), staff (41.5%), and salary (39.7%) to a greater extent than equipment (27.3%) or administrative (24.7%) support. Significantly fewer authors 40 years of age or younger (24.3%) were partially funded relative to authors older than 40 years of age (≥ 47%) (p = 0.001). Significantly fewer authors from a community hospital (0%), from Europe (16.7%), or conducting interventional (7.3%) or heart rhythm (11.5%) studies were fully funded (all p < 0.05). Although only a trend, clinical investigators were more likely to be unfunded (35.7%) relative to basic/basic and clinical investigators (19.1%) (p = 0.001). Those significantly more likely to be fully funded were authors from the United States (35.3%) relative to non-American authors (≤ 28.6%) (p = 0.006). In addition, authors received more funding working in a government or VA hospital (45.9%) than nongovernment hospitals (≤ 27.1%) (p = 0.001). The authors who were 50 years of age or older, from the United States, had PhD degrees, doing basic as well as clinical research, or studying genetics/genomics had significantly more sources of funding and types of support (all p < 0.05).
Considerable published cardiovascular research is currently being conducted without direct financial support. This is particularly true for young clinical investigators. The inability to accommodate this investigation in the medical enterprise might substantially diminish the amount of new knowledge coming forth.
本研究旨在确定已发表心血管研究的范围、类型（例如，人员、设备）和资金来源。
重要的心血管研究往往是在没有直接资金支持的情况下进行的。在没有资金的情况下进行医学研究的程度仍不确定。
我们向《美国心脏病学会杂志》2007 年至 2009 年发表论文的 938 位通讯作者发送了一份电子调查（Survey Monkey）。调查数据包括作者的特征（例如，年龄、机构、研究类型）、资金、资金来源以及对其研究的支持类型。
回复率为 41%（388 名/938 名）。完全获得资金的作者比例为 26%，44.1%的作者部分获得资金，30%的作者没有任何直接资金。大多数资金来自政府（41.8%）和行业（35.1%），而机构、基金会、协会、慈善事业和其他赠款占 23.1%。与设备（27.3%）或行政（24.7%）支持相比，获得资金的作者获得了更多的供应品（43.6%）、人员（41.5%）和薪水（39.7%）。40 岁或以下的作者（24.3%）与 40 岁以上的作者（≥47%）（p=0.001）相比，部分获得资金的可能性较低。来自社区医院（0%）、欧洲（16.7%）或进行介入性（7.3%）或心律（11.5%）研究的作者获得全额资金的可能性较小（均 p<0.05）。虽然只是一个趋势，但临床研究人员比基础/基础和临床研究人员（19.1%）更有可能没有资金（35.7%）（p=0.001）。那些更有可能获得全额资金的作者是来自美国的作者（35.3%），而不是非美国作者（≤28.6%）（p=0.006）。此外，在政府或退伍军人事务医院工作的作者获得的资金（45.9%）比非政府医院（≤27.1%）（p=0.001）多。50 岁或以上、来自美国、拥有博士学位、从事基础和临床研究或研究遗传学/基因组学的作者有更多的资金来源和支持类型（均 p<0.05）。
目前，相当多的已发表心血管研究是在没有直接资金支持的情况下进行的。对于年轻的临床研究人员来说尤其如此。如果无法将这项研究纳入医疗体系，可能会大大减少新的知识来源。
