Influence of society for academic emergency medicine grant mechanisms on postaward academic productivity.

OBJECTIVES

The Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) provides research training grants, but the future productivity of award recipients and nonrecipients is unclear. The study objective was to assess the association of the two SAEM research training mechanisms with scholarly productivity and rates of subsequent funding between nonrecipients and recipients. A secondary goal was to evaluate the productivity metrics for fellows trained at the Institutional Research Training Grant (IRTG) programs.

METHODS

The authors surveyed all 2002 through 2011 Research Training Grant (RTG; n = 64) and Institutional Research Training Grant (IRTG; n = 38) applicants. RTG outcomes were federal funding as a principal investigator (PI) or co-PI using National Institutes of Health RePORTER and scholarly productivity using PubMed. IRTG outcomes were SAEM-approved research fellowships and National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute K12 training awards. Sites applying for or receiving the IRTG multiple times were only counted once. Relative risks (RRs) with 95% confidence intervals (CIs) were calculated.

RESULTS

Over 10 years, nine of 64 (14%) RTG and 10 of 38 (26%) IRTG applications were funded (two sites received multiple awards). Federal funding was obtained by seven of nine (78%) RTG recipients and 22 of 55 (40%) RTG nonrecipients (RR = 1.94, 95% CI = 1.21 to 3.13). All nine (100%, 95% CI = 72% to 100%) of RTG recipients had at least one manuscript, compared to 48 of the 55 (87%, 95% CI = 76% to 95%) nonrecipients. All nine (100%, 95% CI = 72% to 100%) RTG recipients remained in academics versus 44 of 55 (80%, 95% CI = 67% to 90%) nonrecipients. For the IRTG, four of seven awardees (57%, 95% CI = 18% to 90%) versus 0 of the 16 (0%, 95% CI = 0 to 17%) nonrecipients received National Heart, Lung and Blood Institute K12 awards (RR = 19.1, 95% CI = 1.16 to 314.0). Additionally, five of seven (71%, 95% CI = 29% to 96%) institutions became SAEM-approved fellowships compared to one of 16 (6%, 95% CI = 0 to 30%) nonrecipients (RR = 11.4, 95% CI = 1.61 to 80.7).

CONCLUSIONS

SAEM RTG recipients were more likely to obtain federal funding postaward than nonrecipients. IRTG recipients were more likely to develop successful research training programs than nonrecipients.