Gender differences in grant and personnel award funding rates at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research based on research content area: A retrospective analysis
Karen E. A. Burns aff001; Sharon E. Straus aff001; Kuan Liu aff005; Leena Rizvi aff002; Gordon Guyatt aff003
Působiště autorů: The Li Ka Shing Knowledge Institute, St. Michael’s Hospital, Toronto, Ontario, Canada aff001; The Interdepartmental Division of Critical Care, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada aff002; Health Research Methods, Evidence and Impact, McMaster University, Hamilton, Ontario, Canada aff003; Division of General Internal Medicine, Department of Medicine, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada aff004; Dalla Lana School of Public Health, University of Toronto, Toronto, Ontario, Canada aff005
Vyšlo v časopise: Gender differences in grant and personnel award funding rates at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research based on research content area: A retrospective analysis. PLoS Med 16(10): e32767. doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1002935
Kategorie: Research Article
Although women at all career stages are more likely to leave academia than men, early-career women are a particularly high-risk group. Research supports that women are less likely than men to receive research funding; however, whether funding success rates vary based on research content is unknown. We addressed gender differences in funding success rates for applications directed to one or more of 13 institutes, representing research communities, over a 15-year period.
Methods and findings
We retrospectively reviewed 55,700 grant and 4,087 personnel award applications submitted to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. We analyzed application success rates according to gender and the primary institute selected by applicants, pooled gender differences in success rates using random effects models, and fitted Poisson regression models to assess the effects of gender, time, and institute. We noted variable success rates among grant applications directed to selected institutes and declining success rates over time. Women submitted 31.1% and 44.7% of grant and personnel award applications, respectively. In the pooled estimate, women had significantly lower grant success (risk ratio [RR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84–0.94; p < 0.001; absolute difference 3.2%) compared with men, with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 58%). Compared with men, women who directed grants to the Institutes of Cancer Research (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78–0.96), Circulatory and Respiratory Health (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66–0.84), Health Services and Policy Research (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68–0.90), and Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.69–0.93) were significantly less likely to be funded, and those who directed grants to the Institute of Aboriginal People’s Health (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.0–2.7) were more likely to be funded. Overall, women also had significantly lower personnel award success (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65–0.86; p < 0.001; absolute difference 6.6%). Regression modelling identified that the effect of gender on grant success rates differed by institute and not time. Study limitations include use of institutes as a surrogate identifier, variability in designation of primary institute, and lack of access to metrics reflecting applicants, coapplicants, peer reviewers, and the peer-review process.
Gender disparity existed overall in grant and personnel award success rates, especially for grants directed to selected research communities. Funding agencies should monitor for gender differences in grant success rates overall and by research content.
Health care policy – Health services research – Health systems strengthening – Peer review – Research funding – Research grants – Science policy – Scientists
1. Hoey J. Social sciences meet basic sciences in new era of health-services research. CMAJ. 2001;164:248.
2. Gray C. Clinicians will benefit from new research initiative, CIHR promises. CMAJ. 2000;163:586.
3. Kondro W. CIHR floats “research-into-action” trial balloon. CMAJ. 2003;168:209.
4. Tamblyn R, McMahon M, Girard N, Drake E, Nadigel J, Gaudreau K. Health services and policy research in the first decade at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. CMAJ open. 2016;4(2):E213–21. doi: 10.9778/cmajo.20150045 27398366
5. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [Internet]. Ottawa: Canadian Institutes of Health Research; c2017 [cited 2018 Feb 16]. About the institutes. Available from: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/7155.html.
6. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [Internet]. Ottawa: Canadian Institutes of Health Research; c2018 [cited 2018 Sep 25]. Reports to Parliament. Available from: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/22978.html.
7. Kondro W. Correcting the CIHR course. CMAJ. 2009;181:E223–4. doi: 10.1503/cmaj.109-3064 19797264
8. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [Internet]. Ottawa: Canadian Institutes of Health Research; c2014 [cited 2017 Jul 26]. Institute of Health Services and Policy Research. Available from: www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/13733.html.
9. Golper TA, Feldman HI. New challenges and paradigms for mid-career faculty in academic medical centers: key strategies for success for mid-career medical school faculty. Clin J Am Soc Nephrol. 2008 Nov;3(6):1870–4. doi: 10.2215/CJN.03900907 18322049
10. Canadian Institutes of Health Research [Internet]. 2016 Foundation Grant Results. Ottawa: Canadian Institutes of Health Research; c2016 [cited 2019 Sep 27]. Available from: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/e/49854.html.
11. Jagsi R, Motomura AR, Griffith KA, Rangarajan S, Ubel PA. Sex differences in attainment of independent funding by career development awardees. Ann Intern Med. 2009;151:804–11. doi: 10.7326/0003-4819-151-11-200912010-00009 19949146
12. Pohlhaus JR, Jiang H, Wagner RM, Schaffer WT, Pinn VW. Sex differences in application, success, and funding rates for NIH extramural programs. Acad Med. 2011;86:759–67. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e31821836ff 21512358
13. Jagsi R, DeCastro R, Griffith KA, Rangarajan S, Churchill C, Stewart A, et al. Similarities and differences in the career trajectories of male and female career development award recipients. Acad Med. 2011;86:1415–21. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e3182305aa6 21952061
14. Martinez ED, Botos J, Dohoney KM, Geiman TM, Kolla SS, Olievera A, et al. Falling off the academic bandwagon. Women are more likely to quit at the postdoc to principal investigator transition. EMBO Rep. 2007;8:977–81. doi: 10.1038/sj.embor.7401110 17972894
15. Levine RB, Lin F, Kern DE, Wright SM, Carrese J. Stories from early-career women physicians who have left academic medicine: A qualitative study at a single institution. Acad Med. 2011;86:752–758. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0b013e318217e83b 21512363
16. Lowenstein SR, Fernandez G, Crane LA. Medical school faculty discontent: Prevalence and predictors of intent to leave academic careers. BMC Med Educ. 2007;7:37. doi: 10.1186/1472-6920-7-37 17935631
17. Review Manager (RevMan). Version 5.3.0 [software]. 2011. The Cochrane Collaboration. The Nordic Cochrane Centre.
18. Higgins JP, Thompson SG. Quantifying heterogeneity in a meta-analysis. Stat Med. 2002;21:1539–58. doi: 10.1002/sim.1186 12111919
19. Higgins JPT, Green S, editors. Cochrane Handbook for Systematic Reviews of Interventions Version 5.1.0. The Cochrane Collaboration. London; 2011 [updated 2011 Mar]. Available from: http://handbook.cochrane.org.
20. Frome EL. The analysis of rates using Poisson regression models. Biometrics. 1983;39(3):665–74. 6652201
21. King NB, Harper S, Young ME. Use of absolute and relative effect measures in reporting health inequalities: structured review. BMJ. 2012;345:e5774. doi: 10.1136/bmj.e5774 22945952
22. Low A, Low A. Importance of relative measures in policy on health inequalities. BMJ. 2006;332:967–9. doi: 10.1136/bmj.332.7547.967 16627518
23. Clohisy DR, Yaszemski MJ, Lipman J. Leadership, Communication, and Negotiation Across a Diverse Workforce*: An AOA Critical Issues Symposium. J Bone Joint Surg Am. 2017 Jun 21;99(12):e60. doi: 10.2106/JBJS.16.00792 28632597
24. Girod S, Fassiotto M, Grewal D, et al. Reducing implicit gender leadership bias in academic medicine with an educational intervention. Acad Med. 2016;91:1143–50. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000001099 26826068
25. National Institutes of Health [Internet]. Research project grants: Competing applications and awards, by gender. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health: 2016 [cited 2018 Jul 25]. Available from: https://report.nih.gov/nihdatabook/report/132?showm=Y&chartId=176&catId=1.
26. McAllister D, Juillerat J, Hunter J. Funding: What stops women getting more grants? Nature. 2016;529:466
27. National Institutes of Health [Internet]. Research grant investigators: Representation of women, by mechanism. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 2016 [cited 2018 May 30]. Available from: https://report.nih.gov/NIHDatabook/Charts/Default.aspx?showm=Y&chartId=169&catId=15.
28. Ginther DK, Schaffer WT, Schnell J, Masimore B, Liu F, Haak LL, et al. Race, ethnicity, and NIH research awards. Science. 2011;333:1015–1019. doi: 10.1126/science.1196783 21852498
29. European Research Council. Gender statistics. European Research Council. Brussels; 2017 [cited 2018 Jul 25]. Available from: https://erc.europa.eu/sites/default/files/document/file/erc_2017_cog_statistics.pdf.
30. Head MG, Fitchett JR, Cooke MK, Wurie FB, Atun R. Differences in research funding for women scientists: a systematic comparison of UK investments in global infectious disease research during 1997–2010. BMJ Open. 2013;3:e003362. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2013-003362 24327360
31. Hechtman LA, Moore NP, Schulkey CE, Miklos AC, Calcagno AM, Aragon R, et al. NIH Funding Longevity by Gender. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2018 Jul 16. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1800615115 30012615
32. Waisbren SE, Bowles H, Hasan T, Zou KH, Emans SJ, Goldberg C, et al. Gender differences in research grant applications and funding outcomes for medical school faculty. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2008;17(2):207–14. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2007.0412 18321172
33. Eloy JA, Svider PF, Kovalerchik O, Baredes S, Kalyoussef E, Chandrasekhar SS. Gender differences in successful NIH grant funding in otolaryngology. Otolaryngol Head Neck Surg. 2013;149(1):77–83. doi: 10.1177/0194599813486083 23585148
34. Gordon MB, Osganian SK, Emans SJ, Lovejoy FH Jr. Gender differences in research grant applications for pediatric residents. Pediatrics. 2009;124(2):e355–61. doi: 10.1542/peds.2008-3626 19581267
35. van der Lee R, Ellemers N. Gender contributes to personal research funding success in The Netherlands. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2015;112(40):12349–353 doi: 10.1073/pnas.1510159112 26392544
36. Nosek BA, Smyth FL, Sriram N, Lindner NM, Devos T, Ayala A, et al. National differences in gender-science stereotypes predict national sex differences in science and math achievement. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2009;106:10593–97. doi: 10.1073/pnas.0809921106 19549876
37. Devine PG. Stereotypes and prejudice: Their automatic and controlled components. J Pers Soc Psychol. 1989;56:5–18.
38. van den Besselaar P, SandstroÈm U. Vicious circles of gender bias, lower positions, and lower performance: Gender differences in scholarly productivity and impact. PLoS ONE. 2017 [cited 2019 Sep 27];12(8):e0183301. Available from: https://doi.org/10.1371/journal.pone.0183301 28841666
39. Bornmann L, Mutz R, Daniel HD. Gender differences in grant peer review: A meta-analysis. J Informetrics. 2007;1(3):226–38.
40. National Institutes of Health [Internet]. R01-equivalent grants: Success rates, by gender and type of application. Bethesda, MD: National Institutes of Health; 2015 [cited 2015 Apr 10]. Available from: report.nih.gov/NIHDatabook/Charts/Default.aspx?showm=Y&chartId=131&catId=13.
41. Files JA, Mayer AP, Ko MG, Friedrich P, Jenkins M, Bryan MJ, et al. Speaker Introductions at Internal Medicine Grand Rounds: Forms of Address Reveal Gender Bias. J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2017;26(5):413–19.
42. Phillips NA, Tannan SC, Kalliainen LK. Understanding and Overcoming Implicit Gender Bias in Plastic Surgery. Plast Reconstr Surg. 2016;138:1111–6. doi: 10.1097/PRS.0000000000002668 27391836
43. Mehta S, Burns KEA, Machado FR, Fox-Robichaud AE, Cook DJ, Calfee CS, et al. Diversity Matters–Gender Parity in Critical Care. Am J Respir Crit Care Med. 2017;196:425–9. doi: 10.1164/rccm.201701-0076CP 28240961
44. Wenneras C, Wold A. Nepotism and Sexism in Peer-Review. Nature. 1997;387:341–3. doi: 10.1038/387341a0 9163412
45. Gannon F, Quirk S, Guest S. Searching for discrimination: Are women treated fairly in the EMBO postdoctoral fellowship scheme? EMBO Rep. 2001;2:655–7. doi: 10.1093/embo-reports/kve170 11493590
46. Sandstrom U, Hallsten M. Persistent nepotism in peer-review. Scientometrics. 2008;74:175–89.
47. Steinpreis RE, Anders KA, Ritzke D. The impact of gender on the review of the curricula vitae of job applicants and tenure candidates: A national empirical study. Sex Roles. 1999;41(7–8):509–528.
48. Marsh HW, Jayasinghe UW, Bond NW. Improving the peer-review process for grant applications: Reliability, validity, bias, and generalizability. Am Psychol. 2008;63(3):160–8. doi: 10.1037/0003-066X.63.3.160 18377106
49. Bedi G, Van Dam NT, Munafo M. Gender inequality in awarded research grants. Lancet. 2012;380:474. doi: 10.1016/S0140-6736(12)61292-6 22863053
50. Moss-Racusin CA, Dovidio JF, Brescoll VL, Graham MJ, Handelsman J. Science faculty’s subtle gender biases favor male students. Proc Natl Acad Sci USA. 2012;109:16474–9. doi: 10.1073/pnas.1211286109 22988126
51. Biernat M, Fuegen K. Shifting standards and the evaluation of competence: Complexity in gender-based judgments and decision making. J Soc Issues. 2001;57(4):707–24.
52. Schmader T, Whitehead J, Wysocki VH. A linguistic comparison of letters of recommendation for male and female chemistry and biochemistry job applicants. Sex Roles. 2007;57(7–8):509–14. doi: 10.1007/s11199-007-9291-4 18953419
53. Kaatz A, Magua W, Zimmerman DR, Carnes M. A quantitative linguistic analysis of National Institutes of Health R01 application critiques from investigators at one institution. Acad Med. 2015;90(1):69–75. doi: 10.1097/ACM.0000000000000442 25140529
54. Castilla EJ, Bernard S. The paradox of meritocracy in organizations. Adm Sci Q. 2010;55(4):543–76.
55. Kaiser CR, et al. Presumed fair: Ironic effects of organizational diversity structures. J Pers Soc Psychol. 2013;104(3):504–19. doi: 10.1037/a0030838 23163748
56. Sharman Z, Johnson J. Towards the inclusion of gender and sex in health research and funding: an institutional perspective. Social Sci Medicine. 2012;74:1812–16.
Článek vyšel v časopise
2019 Číslo 10
- Nutraceutikum Armolipid Plus podle klinických důkazů zlepšuje lipidový profil − metaanalýza
- Příznivý vliv Armolipidu Plus na hladinu cholesterolu a zánětlivé parametry u pacientů s chronickým subklinickým zánětem
- Berberin: přírodní hypolipidemikum se slibnými výsledky
- Armolipid Plus – doplněk stravy s potvrzeným účinkem na dyslipidemii
- Doplňky stravy v terapii mírné a středně závažné dyslipidémie
Nejčtenější v tomto čísle
- Characterization of Parkinson’s disease using blood-based biomarkers: A multicohort proteomic analysis
- Association of preterm birth with lipid disorders in early adulthood: A Swedish cohort study
- Preconception diabetes mellitus and adverse pregnancy outcomes in over 6.4 million women: A population-based cohort study in China
- The efficacy of dihydroartemisinin-piperaquine and artemether-lumefantrine with and without primaquine on Plasmodium vivax recurrence: A systematic review and individual patient data meta-analysis
Zvyšte si kvalifikaci online z pohodlí domova
Deprese u dětí a adolescentůnový kurz