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

[Guest guest]

ls of Family Medicine 6:534-542 (2008)

2008 ls of Family Medicine, Inc.

doi: 10.1370/afm.911

ls of Family Medicine - USA

Abstract

Full Text

TRACK Discussion: Submit a Comment

http://www.annfammed.org/cgi/content/full/6/6/534

Off the Roadmap? Family Medicine's Grant Funding and Committee

Representation at NIH

C. Lucan, MD, MPH1,2,3, L. , Jr, MD, MSPH4 and

W. Bazemore, MD, MPH4

1 Wood Clinical Scholars Program, University of

Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

2 Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of

Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

3 Leonard Institute of Health Economics, University of

Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

4 Graham Center, Policy Studies in Family Medicine and

Primary Care, Washington, DC

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: C. Lucan, MD, MPH, Wood

Clinical Scholars Program, University of Pennsylvania, 423 Guardian

Dr Blockley Hall, 13th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6021,

sean.lucan@...

Off the Roadmap? Family Medicine's Grant Funding and Committee

Representation at NIH

C. Lucan, MD, MPH1,2,3, L. , Jr, MD, MSPH4 and

W. Bazemore, MD, MPH4

1 Wood Clinical Scholars Program, University of

Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

2 Department of Family Medicine and Community Health, University of

Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

3 Leonard Institute of Health Economics, University of

Pennsylvania, Philadelphia

4 Graham Center, Policy Studies in Family Medicine and

Primary Care, Washington, DC

CORRESPONDING AUTHOR: C. Lucan, MD, MPH, Wood

Clinical Scholars Program, University of Pennsylvania, 423 Guardian

Dr Blockley Hall, 13th Floor, Philadelphia, PA 19104-6021,

sean.lucan@...

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 •

It is not down in any map; true places never are.

Herman Melville