1 From the Icahn School of Medicine at Mount Sinai , New York, New York.
2 The National Palliative Care Research Center , New York, New York.
J Palliat Med. 2018 Feb;21(2):182-187. doi: 10.1089/jpm.2017.0287. Epub 2017 Aug 9.
The evidence base to support palliative care clinical practice is inadequate and opportunities to improve the palliative care evidence base remain despite the field's rapid growth.
To examine current NIH funding of palliative medicine research, changes since our 2013 report, and trends since our 2008 report.
We sought to identify NIH funding of palliative medicine from 2011 to 2015 in two stages: (I) we searched the NIH grants database "RePorter" for grants with key words "palliative care," "end-of-life care," "hospice," and "end of life" and (II) we identified palliative care researchers likely to have secured NIH funding using three strategies.
We abstracted (1) the first and last authors' names from original investigations published in major palliative medicine journals from 2013 to 2015; (2) these names from a PubMed-generated list of original articles published in major medicine, nursing, and subspecialty journals using the above key words; and (3) palliative medicine journal editorial board members and key members of palliative medicine initiatives. We crossmatched the pooled names against NIH grants funded from 2011 to 2015.
The author and NIH RePorter search identified 854 and 419 grants, respectively. The 461 grants categorized as relevant to palliative medicine represented 334 unique PIs. Compared to 2006-2010, the number of NIH-funded junior career development awards nearly doubled (6.1%-10%), articles published in nonpalliative care specialty journals tripled (13%-37%), published palliative care researchers increased by 2.5-fold (839-2120), and NIH-funded original palliative medicine research articles doubled (21%-39%).
Despite the challenging NIH funding climate, NIH funding to palliative care remained stable. The increase in early stage career development funding, palliative care investigators, and palliative medicine research published in nonpalliative medicine journals reflects important advances to address the workforce and evidence gaps. Further support for palliative care research is still needed.
目前，支持姑息治疗临床实践的证据基础还不够完善，尽管姑息治疗领域发展迅速，但仍有机会改善姑息治疗的证据基础。
本研究旨在调查美国国立卫生研究院（NIH）目前对姑息医学研究的资助情况，以及与我们 2013 年报告相比的变化和自 2008 年报告以来的趋势。
我们分两个阶段来寻找 2011 年至 2015 年 NIH 对姑息医学的资助：（I）我们在 NIH 资助数据库“RePorter”中搜索关键词为“姑息治疗”、“临终关怀”、“临终关怀”和“生命末期”的资助项目；（II）我们使用三种策略确定可能获得 NIH 资助的姑息治疗研究人员。
我们从 2013 年至 2015 年主要姑息医学期刊上发表的原始研究中提取（1）第一作者和最后作者的姓名；（2）使用上述关键词从 PubMed 生成的主要医学、护理和专科期刊发表的原始文章列表中提取这些姓名；（3）姑息医学期刊编委会成员和姑息医学计划的主要成员。我们将汇总的姓名与 2011 年至 2015 年期间获得 NIH 资助的项目进行交叉匹配。
作者和 NIH RePorter 搜索分别确定了 854 项和 419 项资助。461 项被归类为与姑息医学相关的资助项目代表了 334 个独特的 PI。与 2006-2010 年相比，NIH 资助的初级职业发展奖数量几乎翻了一番（6.1%-10%），发表在非姑息治疗专业期刊上的文章数量增加了两倍（13%-37%），发表的姑息治疗研究人员增加了两倍半（839-2120），NIH 资助的原始姑息医学研究文章数量增加了一倍（21%-39%）。
尽管 NIH 的资助环境具有挑战性，但 NIH 对姑息治疗的资助仍然保持稳定。早期职业发展资助、姑息治疗研究人员以及发表在非姑息治疗期刊上的姑息医学研究的增加，反映了为解决劳动力和证据差距而取得的重要进展。仍需要进一步支持姑息治疗研究。
