SPECIAL CONTRIBUTION
Productivity and Career Paths of Previous Recipients of Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Research Grant Awards Kelly D. Young, MD, MS, on behalf of the 2005–2006 and 2006–2007 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Grants Committees
Abstract Objectives: The objective was to assess productivity of previous recipients of Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) grant awards. Methods: All previous recipients of SAEM Research Training Grants, Neuroscience Research Awards, Scholarly Sabbatical Awards, and Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Research Fellowship awards funded through 2004 were identified through SAEM’s records and surveyed. Award categories assessed were those still offered by SAEM at the time of the survey and therefore excluded the Geriatric Research Award. The 2005–2006 SAEM Grants Committee developed a survey using previous publications assessing productivity of training grants and fellowship awards and refined it through consensus review and limited pilot testing. We assessed measures of academic productivity (numbers of publications and additional grants awarded), commitment to an academic career, satisfaction with the SAEM award, and basic demographic information. Results: Overall response rate was 70%; usable data were returned by all seven Research Training Grant awardees, both Neuroscience awardees, four of five Scholarly Sabbatical awardees, and six of 14 EMS Research Fellowship awardees. Of those who gave demographic information, 78% (14 ⁄ 18) were male and 94% (16 ⁄ 17) were non-Hispanic white. All the respondents remained in academics, and 14 of 19 felt that they will definitely be in academics 5 years from the time of the survey. They have a median of 1.8 original research publications per year since the end of their grant period, and 74% (14 ⁄ 19) have received subsequent federal funding. All found the SAEM award to be helpful or very helpful to their careers. Conclusions: Previous recipients of the SAEM grant awards show evidence of academic productivity in the form of subsequent grant funding and research publications, and the majority remain committed to and satisfied with their academic research careers. ACADEMIC EMERGENCY MEDICINE 2008; 15:560–566 ª 2008 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Keywords: grant, research, funding, productivity
I
n a 1994 conference ‘‘The Role of Emergency Medicine in the Future of American Medical Care,’’ the Josiah Macy Jr. Foundation made recommendations
From the Department of Pediatrics, David Geffen School of Medicine at UCLA, Los Angeles, CA; and the Department of Emergency Medicine, Harbor-UCLA Medical Center, Torrance, CA. Received November 13, 2007; revisions received January 7 and February 5, 2008; accepted February 14, 2008. 2005–2006 and 2006–2007 SAEM Grants Committee Members are listed in Appendix A. Approved by the SAEM Board of Directors on March 2, 2008. Address for correspondence and reprints: Kelly D. Young, MD, MS; e-mail:
[email protected].
560
ISSN 1069-6563 PII ISSN 1069-6563583
to improve research in emergency medicine (EM).1 Subsequent conferences with academic EM leaders in 1995 and 1997 resulted in specific goals to increase research funding sources and training opportunities.2 To that end, in 1998, the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) established a research fund and began to provide 1-year, $50,000 Research Training Grant Awards; 6-month, $50,000 Scholarly Sabbatical Awards; and small $500 EM Medical Student Interest Group Awards. Prior to 1998, SAEM had already been funding a 1-year, $50,000 Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Research Fellowship Award (since 1990) and a Geriatric EM Research Award (since the mid-1990s, which has since been discontinued).3 In 2000, the Scholarly Sabbatical Award was increased to $60,000, and
ª 2008 by the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine doi: 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00111.x
ACAD EMERG MED • June 2008, Vol. 15, No. 6
•
www.aemj.org
two Research Training Grant Awards were given for 2000 and 2001. In 2002 the Research Training Grant was expanded to a 2-year, $150,000 award, and a 2year, $150,000 Institutional Research Training Grant Award for research mentors to fund a research fellow of their choice was also established. In 2002, the EMS Research Fellowship Award was increased to $60,000, and a 1-year, $50,000 award to fund research in EM neuroscience was begun. The SAEM Board of Directors has remained dedicated to increasing funding and research training opportunities.3 A fellow-to-faculty award funded in conjunction with the American Heart Association (AHA) and Emergency Medicine Foundation (EMF), and an SAEM ⁄ Emergency Medicine Patient Safety Foundation (EMPSF) EM Patient Safety Research Fellowship Award funded through the EMPSF, have been added to SAEM’s research funding opportunities. In 2003, SAEM began a formal ‘‘giving campaign’’ designed to expand the research fund.3 The general goal of the SAEM grant awards is to foster the development of EM researchers,3 with the exception that the EMS Research Fellowship Award emphasizes research and leadership development equally. Still, a 2001 evaluation of the progress in EM research since the Macy Foundation report noted that, ‘‘[t]here are sparse data on the research success of graduates from these (research) fellowship programs.’’2 This article recommended the development of tools to measure long-term productivity and objective assessments of the research productivity of fellows trained in research. We found no published study to date that has specifically followed the progress and productivity of emergency physicians trained to conduct research. The SAEM Grants Committee, in response to a request by the SAEM Board of Directors, therefore developed a survey to assess the productivity and career paths of previous recipients of SAEM research grant awards. The objective of this article is to report characteristics of the career paths and academic productivity of the past recipients of SAEM grant awards and to assess their career satisfaction. METHODS Study Design and Population In September 2005, a survey was administered using electronic mail to all past recipients of the Research Training Grant, Institutional Research Training Grant, Scholarly Sabbatical Grant, Emergency Medical Services Research Fellowship, and Neuroscience Awards funded through 2004. It was felt that more current recipients were either still in training or would not have had sufficient time after the award to assess productivity. Past recipients of the Geriatric EM Research Award were not surveyed because this award is no longer offered, and the survey was originally designed to assess the utility of current SAEM awards. The database of potential subjects was obtained from the SAEM administrative office. Electronic mail addresses were available from the SAEM membership database. Many of the previous recipients were also personally known to members of the SAEM grants
561
committee and were encouraged to return the survey separately. The survey was identified as sponsored by the SAEM Board of Directors. No assurances of confidentiality were made. Because of the voluntary nature of the study, informed consent was considered to be implied with the return of the survey and ⁄ or curriculum vitae. This research meets the requirements for exempt research as outlined in the Code of Federal Regulations 45 CFR 46.101. Survey Content and Administration The survey instrument was developed and refined by members of the 2005–2006 SAEM Grants Committee. No formal technique for survey development was used. Survey items were culled from a literature search of follow-up surveys on federally funded research trainees (National Institutes of Health [NIH] National Research Service Awards for postdoctoral fellows [F32] and National Research Service Award Institutional Research Training Grants [T32]), Medical Scientist Training Program (MSTP) trainees, and other research fellowships.4–12 Primary outcome measures indicating a ‘‘successful’’ training program typically studied included numbers of grant applications submitted and funded and, of those, number of federally funded grants, number of research publications, and whether or not the trainee remains in an academic career. The survey was informally pilot tested for clarity of wording and item comprehension by members of the SAEM Grants Committee and junior faculty members in the primary author’s department. Awardees were surveyed regarding current academic position, total number of publications and the number of publications since receiving the award, total grant applications submitted but not funded, total grant funding and grant funding since receiving the award (both as the principal investigator and as coinvestigator), committee and editorial services, and overall satisfaction with the SAEM award and satisfaction with career progress (the complete survey is available as an online Data Supplement at http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/ doi/suppl/10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00111.x/suppl_file/ acem_111_sm_DataSupplementS1.pdf). Awardees were also asked to estimate their likelihood of remaining in academic EM in 5 and 10 years and to provide basic demographic information. To facilitate a higher response rate, awardees were given the option of providing an updated curriculum vitae or biosketch instead of providing their numbers of publications and grant awards. In these cases, a single SAEM grants committee member (KY) abstracted the relevant data on publications and grant awards. Follow-up electronic mail reminders were sent to late responders, and individual SAEM grants committee members also contacted nonresponders. Data Analysis Data were entered into a Microsoft Excel 2003 spreadsheet (Microsoft Corp., Redmond, WA) and imported using DBMS copy (Data Flux Corp., Cary, NC) for analysis with SAS version 8 (SAS Institute, Cary, NC). Descriptive statistics were used to report the main findings. Pearson correlation was used to explore the
562
Young
correlation between total clinical hours per week worked with two measures of productivity: publications per year since completing the grant and number of grants awarded per year since completing the grant. RESULTS The overall response rate was 70%. Surveys were returned by seven of seven Research Training Grant awardees, two of two Neuroscience awardees, four of five Scholarly Sabbatical awardees, two of two Institutional Research Training Grant mentor awardees, but only six of 14 Emergency Medical Services Research Fellowship awardees. Both of the neuroscience grant awardees initially applied for the Research Training Grant Award and, since their respective projects involved the study of neurosciences, were awarded the neuroscience funding instead. Therefore, the data from these two awardees were combined with the data from the Research Training Grant awardees. Both of the Institutional Research Training Grant mentors returned surveys, but it was difficult to determine whether the answers pertained to the mentors or the fellows trained by those mentors. Also, due to the time required to recruit a fellow, the fellows trained under Institutional Research Training Grant funding were very recently graduated at the time of the survey. Therefore, no results are reported for the Institutional Research Training Grant. Eight of the 19 respondents elected to have the committee review their curriculum vitae for the publications and grants portion of the survey. All
•
PRODUCTIVITY OF SAEM GRANT AWARDEES
but two of the survey responses were received by February 2006 and include information on career progress to that point. Of the 19 total respondents, 18 provided basic demographic information, with 17 self-identifying race ⁄ ethnicity. Seventy-eight percent (14 ⁄ 18) were male and 94% (16 ⁄ 17) were non-Hispanic white, while one self-described ethnicity as ‘‘other.’’ All of the awardees found the SAEM grant to be helpful or very helpful to their career, and all but one were satisfied or very satisfied with their career progress. Research Training Grant and Neuroscience Awardees All nine of the Research Training Grant ⁄ Neuroscience awardees remain in academic EM. Career characteristics are found in Table 1. Two awardees have significant protected research time (75 and 80% respectively). Clinical hours for the four tenure track awardees varied widely (8, 18, 20, and 24 clinical hours per week). Productivity measures are found in Table 2. The total direct costs received of all grant awards (not including the SAEM award), when provided, ranged from $18,500 to $1,700,000. Additional academic activities are shown in Table 3. Scholarly Sabbatical Awardees Four of the five past Scholarly Sabbatical awardees responded, all of whom remain in academic EM. One did not respond and could not be found as a current member of an academic EM department. Career characteristics are found in Table 1. Productivity measures
Table 1 Career Characteristics by Award Type
Years since grant award ended, median (range) Academic rank % Who were on research track % Who were on tenure track % Who had additional advanced degree, e.g., MPH, MS, PhD* Estimated percent research time, median (range) Clinical hours per week median (range) % Who had identifiable mentor % Who had mentor from own department % Probable or definite academic career in 5 years % Probable or definite academic career in 10 years
Research Training Grant or Neuroscience Award (n = 9)
Scholarly Sabbatical Award (n = 4)
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Research Fellowship Award (n = 6)
4 (2–7)
3.5 (2–6)
11.5 (6–14)
1 Associate Prof.; 8 Assistant Prof.
1 Associate Prof.; 2 Assistant Prof.; 1 Staff physician 100% (4 ⁄ 4) 67% (2 ⁄ 3) 50% (2 ⁄ 4)
5 Associate Prof.; 1 Assistant Prof.
63% (5 ⁄ 8) 57% (4 ⁄ 7) 67% (6 ⁄ 9) 30% (0%–80%) 20 (8–28)
35% (25%–50%) 14 (12–28)
0% (0 ⁄ 4) 0% (0 ⁄ 3) 67% (4 ⁄ 6) 7.5% (0%–35%) 22 (5–32)
89% (8 ⁄ 9) 50% (4 ⁄ 8)
100% 25% (1 ⁄ 4)
60% (3 ⁄ 5) 67% (2 ⁄ 3)
100% (9 ⁄ 9)
100% (4 ⁄ 4)
83% (5 ⁄ 6)
75% (6 ⁄ 8)
100% (4 ⁄ )
67% (4 ⁄ 6)
Prof. = Professor *Advanced degrees could have been obtained prior to, during, or after the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine (SAEM) award period.
ACAD EMERG MED • June 2008, Vol. 15, No. 6
•
www.aemj.org
563
Table 2 Research Productivity Measures by Award Type Research Training Grant or Neuroscience Award (n = 9)
Scholarly Sabbatical Award (n = 4)
Emergency Medical Services (EMS) Research Fellowship Award (n = 6)
12 (4–39) 8 (3–18)
18 (7–65) 8 (4–45)
14 (3–31) 13 (3–31)
4 (1–12)
3 (0–30)
6 (1–9)
4 (1–10)
6 (0–13)
4 (0–12)
75% (3 ⁄ 4) 2.2 (1.7–6.8)
67% (4 ⁄ 6) 1.1 (0.8–1.6)
1.1 (0.3–3)
0.4 (0–0.6)
Total original research publications, median (range) Original research publications since SAEM grant period ended, median (range) First-authored original research publications since SAEM grant period ended, median (range) Grant awards since SAEM grant period ended, median (range) % Receiving subsequent federal grant funding Publications per year since SAEM grant period ended, median (IQR) Grant awards per year since SAEM grant period ended, median (IQR)
78% (7 ⁄ 9) 2.5 (1–4) 1.2 (0.5–1.3)
IQR = interquartile range; SAEM = Society for Academic Emergency Medicine.
Table 3 Current Academic Activities of Award Recipients Research Training Grant or Neuroscience Award (n = 9) Peer reviewer for EM journal Peer reviewer for journal of other medical discipline Editorial board of a medical journal Reviewer for foundation grant Reviewer for federal grant Serve on IRB Number of national committees, median (range) Number of state committees, median (range) Number of institutional committees, median (range)
78% 44% 13% 25% 13% 22% 1.5 0 0.5
(7 ⁄ 9) (4 ⁄ 9) (1 ⁄ 8) (2 ⁄ 8) (1 ⁄ 8) (2 ⁄ 9) (0–5) (0–2) (0–4)
Scholarly Sabbatical Award (n = 4) 100% 75% 50% 25% 75% 25% 4 1.5 4.5
(4 ⁄ 4) (3 ⁄ 4) (2 ⁄ 4) (2 ⁄ 4) (3 ⁄ 4) (1 ⁄ 4) (0–8) (0–2) (0–11)
Emergency Medical Services Research Fellowship Award (n = 6) 100% 50% 50% 17% 0% 17% 3 3 5
(6 ⁄ 6) (3 ⁄ 6) (3 ⁄ 6) (1 ⁄ 6) (0 ⁄ 6) (1 ⁄ 6) (0–4) (1–11) (0–6)
EM = emergency medicine; IRB = Institutional Review Board.
are found in Table 2, and other academic activities are shown in Table 3. EMS Research Fellowship Awardees All six respondents were from the earlier years (1991– 1999) of the EMS Research Fellowship Award. Five remained in academic EM; one was the Emergency Medical Services medical director for the local city government. Career characteristics, productivity measures, and additional academic activities are included in Tables 1–3. The four respondents who had obtained subsequent funding at the federal level had obtained additional advanced degrees. Productivity Factors Clinical hours worked per week was significantly inversely correlated with the number of grants received since the SAEM award (r = )0.62, p = 0.006) and moderately inversely correlated with the total number of original research publications (r = )0.44, p = 0.07). However, when correcting for the number of years since completion of the SAEM award period by analyzing the numbers of publications and grant awards per
year since completion of the SAEM award rather than total numbers, clinical hours was only somewhat inversely correlated with number of publications per year (r = )0.28, p = 0.26) and with number of grant awards per year (r = )0.37, p = 0.13). DISCUSSION There has been progress since the Macy Report in the development of academic EM.2 A recent survey of academic EM department research directors indicated that a median of six of 14 core faculty were actively involved in research and that 74% of departments had investigator-initiated grant support during the past 3 years, obtained by a median of three faculty per department.13 However, the median gross revenue of the entire department among those departments that had received investigator-initiated funding in 2004 was only $119,500. Another study of EM publications found that the number of published studies that were funded increased from 28% of studies published in 1994 to 36% of those published in 2003.14 This proportion, while improved, remains lower than that of other specialties.
564
Because EM is a relatively young academic field, academic EM leaders have actively worked to foster the growth of a cadre of investigators able to successfully secure funding for EM research. Both SAEM and the EMF emphasize training awards with the hope of adding to this group of investigators. However, no formal follow-up evaluating the success of this tactic has been previously performed. Follow-up evaluations have been performed after training similar to the SAEM awards in non-EM fields. A study of primary care fellows trained under the F32 mechanism found that 26% had become principal investigators on a federal research grant.12 Another study of trainees supported by T32, F32, or K04 awards in the NIH Division of Kidney, Urologic, and Hematologic Diseases found that 32% had since applied to the NIH for research support, of whom 76% of those were funded. Only 42% of the trainees were currently active in research, however.10 Follow-up of MSTPs found more than two-thirds had since obtained NIH funding, and the majority remained in academic research careers.4,7,9 Similar to findings in other fields, we also found evidence of productivity and a commitment to an academic research career on follow-up of SAEM awardees. Research fellowships similar to SAEM’s Research Training Grant, especially those lasting at least 2 years, have been associated with increased academic success and career satisfaction.15–17 However, the value of awards similar to the SAEM Scholarly Sabbatical award has not been previously demonstrated as clearly as the value of research fellowships. This study shows evidence of productivity among four of five Scholarly Sabbatical awardees. Conclusions regarding the Emergency Medical Services Research Fellowship award mechanism in terms of contributions to academic productivity are difficult to interpret, given the low response rate and likely self-selection bias. Also, the selection process for the EMS Research Fellowship award emphasizes research and leadership potential equally, while our survey focused on research accomplishments. Still, there was evidence of productivity among these awardees as well. Funds are no longer available for the SAEM Neuroscience Award. Despite the limitations of this study, these results support continued growth of the SAEM research fund and continuation or expansion of the SAEM research grants program. With the exception of the Scholarly Sabbatical Award, SAEM’s research awards have focused on training young physicians with the hopes of creating a future pool of academic EM researchers who go on to obtain additional funding, contribute to the EM literature, and in turn, mentor subsequent young researchers. Because EM is a relatively young field, the pool of senior funded research mentors was very small a few decades ago.2 Therefore, the Scholarly Sabbatical Award also aims to increase this pool by providing midcareer academicians with additional training and support needed to advance their research careers. As evidenced by the high percentage of awardees that have gone on to obtain other funding, particularly federal funding, the SAEM grants program has been successful in contributing to an increase in this pool. We
Young
•
PRODUCTIVITY OF SAEM GRANT AWARDEES
recommend ongoing evaluation of past awardees to see whether they become, as expected, EM research mentors and leaders. We also recommend continued tracking of the progress of awardees from each individual award category to assess the value of these individual award types, particularly the relatively new Institutional Research Training Grant and the EMPSF ⁄ SAEM Research Fellowship Award, both of which were not evaluated in this study. The SAEM Grants Committee is committed to reconducting this survey approximately every 5 years. The current SAEM research awards focus primarily on the beginning of a researcher’s career. Even the Scholarly Sabbatical Award is designed to allow a midcareer academician to focus more on a research career rather than a clinician-educator or administrative career or to explore a different line of research than previously studied. SAEM and other EM funding organizations may need to consider adding awards that give support at other stages of research career development. Examples might include bridging funds to promote the transition from receipt of a 2-year research training grant to an NIH career development award, further bridging funds for transitioning between an NIH career development award and investigator-initiated R01-type (NIH Research Project Grant) awards and a medical student scientist training program. The Institutional Research Training Grant should be used to focus funds on developing infrastructure and skills needed for a research mentor to build a successful research training program, further broadening the spectrum at which SAEM impacts the development of the EM research field. As the overall pool of EM researchers and mentors grows, specific research topic areas that remain underdeveloped may be identified, necessitating the creation of awards particularly directed toward meeting those needs. The EMPSF ⁄ SAEM Research Fellowship Award is an example of such an award. It is designed to increase the pool of researchers contributing to the field of patient safety. Also, the EMS Research Fellowship Award focuses on developing researchers and leaders in the field of out-of-hospital care. Previous SAEM awards focused on enhancing research in neuroscience and geriatrics, although these awards were cosponsored and funds are no longer available. Other needs may include areas such as basic science research, translational research, EM systems and health care services research, and areas specific to EM practice such as triage, disaster preparedness, surge capacity, and overcrowding. In this study, increased clinical hours per week was somewhat associated with decreased academic productivity in the form of grant awards and publications, a finding that has been seen in other studies.18,19 Because these data are cross-sectional, causation cannot be inferred. It may be that those with fewer clinical hours have more time to conduct research and write grants and manuscripts, or it may be that those who are successful in publishing and obtaining grant funding are more likely to have their clinical time reduced. The SAEM training awards specify that at least 70% effort must be devoted to the research program, and the
ACAD EMERG MED • June 2008, Vol. 15, No. 6
•
www.aemj.org
Scholarly Sabbatical funds are often used for clinical release time. We feel that provision of ‘‘protected time’’ devoid of clinical and administrative responsibilities to the awardees is important in promoting excellent research training and in enhancing academic productivity. LIMITATIONS The survey was not developed using formal methodology and was not pilot tested. The surrogate markers chosen as measures of academic productivity, while used in similar studies, have not been validated, and no criterion standard exists for the primary outcome of interest, i.e., productivity. The survey did not attempt to distinguish publications and grant awards stemming as a direct result from the SAEM research training from other publications and grants. No attempt was made to differentiate publications by quality of journal. Survey data are from prior to February 2006 and are now more than 2 years old. The sample size was small, and response rate, while excellent for the Research Training Grant, Neuroscience, and Scholarly Sabbatical Awards, was incomplete, particularly for the EMS Research Fellowship. Poorer response among the EMS Research Fellowship awardees was likely because this was the oldest award (earliest recipient from 1990) with the highest number of previous recipients. No attempt to obtain data on nonresponders for comparison to responders was made. Therefore, particularly among the EMS Research Fellowship responders, results may reflect a select and biased group. Responses may also have been biased by responders feeling pressure to show evidence of success after receiving the award, given that the awarding institution (SAEM) was conducting the survey, and the survey was identified as sponsored by the SAEM Board of Directors. Respondents’ reports of numbers of publications and grant awards were accepted on the honor system and cannot be verified. Different respondents could interpret ‘‘original research publication’’ differently. Approximately half the awardees elected to have their curriculum vitae reviewed by a committee member, rather than report their publications and grant awards themselves, and data from the respondents who elected this method may selectively differ from survey data. Finally, although previous recipients of SAEM grant awards show evidence of academic productivity, it is not possible to conclude that there is a cause-and-effect relationship between receipt of the SAEM award and academic productivity. It is possible that those who receive SAEM awards have characteristics such that they are likely to become academically successful and productive regardless of the award. Also, no attempt was made to analyze data clustered by EM department, and productivity may also be a result of EM department or mentor. CONCLUSIONS Previous recipients of the SAEM grant awards show evidence of academic productivity in the form of subse-
565
quent grant funding and research publications, and the majority remain committed to and satisfied with their academic research careers. Also, previous recipients found the SAEM award to be helpful or very helpful to their careers. The SAEM Grants Committee thanks Mary Ann Schropp and the SAEM office staff for their assistance in conducting the surveys. The Grants Committee also thanks all the previous awardees who responded to the survey.
References 1. Macy J Jr. The role of emergency medicine in the future of American medical care. Ann Emerg Med. 1995; 25:230–3. 2. Pollack CV Jr, Hollander JE, O’Neil BJ, et al. Status report: development of emergency medicine research since the Macy Report. Ann Emerg Med. 2003; 42:66–80. 3. Society for Academic Emergency Medicine. Research Fund General Information. Available at: http://www.saem.org/saemdnn/Research/Research Fund/ResearchFundGeneralInformation/tabid/310/ Default.aspx. Accessed Feb 13, 2008. 4. Bradford WD, Anthony D, Chu CT, Pizzo SV. Career characteristics of graduates of a Medical Scientist Training Program, 1970–1990. Acad Med. 1996; 71:484–7. 5. Cheung ME, Craik RL. The National Center for Medical Rehabilitation Research Institutional Training Program, 1992 to 1997. Arch Phys Med Rehabil. 2000; 81:529–34. 6. Dores GM, Chang S, Berger VW, Perkins SN, Hursting SD, Weed DL. Evaluating research training outcomes: experience from the cancer prevention fellowship program at the National Cancer Institute. Acad Med. 2006; 81:535–41. 7. Frieden C, Fox BJ. Career choices of graduates from Washington University’s Medical Scientist Training Program. Acad Med. 1991; 66:162–4. 8. Hillman BJ, Nash KD, Witzke DB, Fajardo LL, Davis D. The RSNA-AUR-ARRS introduction to research program for 2nd year radiology residents: effect on career choice and early academic performance. Radiological Society of North America. Association of University Radiologists. American Roentgen Ray Society. Radiology. 1998; 209:323–6. 9. McClellan DA, Talalay P. MD-PhD training at the Johns Hopkins University School of Medicine, 1962–1991. Acad Med. 1992; 67:36–41. 10. Rodgers CH, Scherbenske MJ. An evaluation of postdoctoral research training and trainees supported by the National Institutes of Health in the Division of Kidney, Urologic and Hematologic Diseases. Am J Kidney Dis. 1990; 16:147–53. 11. Segal LS, Black KP, Schwentker EP, Pellegrini VD. An elective research year in orthopaedic residency: how does one measure its outcome and define its success? Clin Orthop Relat Res. 2006; 449:89–94. 12. Steiner JF, Lanphear BP, Curtis P, Vu KO. The training and career paths of fellows in the National Research Service Award (NRSA) Program for
566
13.
14.
15.
16.
17.
18.
19.
Young
Research in Primary Medical Care. Acad Med. 2002; 77:712–8. Karras DJ, Kruus LK, Baumann BM, et al. Emergency medicine research directors and research programs: characteristics and factors associated with productivity. Acad Emerg Med. 2006; 13:637–44. Birkhahn RH, Van Deusen SK, Okpara OI, Datillo PA, Briggs WM, Gaeta TJ. Funding and publishing trends of original research by emergency medicine investigators over the past decade. Acad Emerg Med. 2006; 13:95–101. Anderson KD, Mavis BE. The relationship between career satisfaction and fellowship training in academic surgeons. Am J Surg. 1995; 169:329–33. Hillman BJ, Fajardo LL, Witzke DB, Irion M, Cardenas D, Fulginiti JV. Factors influencing the success of academic radiologists in publishing research. Invest Radiol. 1989; 24:849–54. Leebens PK, Walker DE, Leckman JF. Determinants of academic survival: survey of AACAP poster authors. J Am Acad Child Adolesc Psychiatry. 1993; 32:453–61. Haggerty RJ, Sutherland SA. The academic general pediatrician: is the species still endangered? Pediatrics. 1999; 104:137–42. Buckley LM, Sanders K, Shih M, Hampton CL. Attitudes of clinical faculty about career progress, career success and recognition, and commitment to academic medicine. Results of a survey. Arch Intern Med. 2000; 160:2625–9.
Supplementary Material The following supplementary material is available for this article: Data Supplement S1. SAEM research grant recipient follow-up questionnaire (PDF document). This material is available as part of the online article from: http://www.blackwell-synergy.com/doi/suppl/ 10.1111/j.1553-2712.2008.00111.x/suppl_file/acem_111_sm_ DataSupplementS1.pdf (This link will take you to the supplementary material). Please note: Blackwell Publishing are not responsible for the content or functionality of any supplementary materials supplied by the authors. Any queries (other
•
PRODUCTIVITY OF SAEM GRANT AWARDEES
than missing material) should be directed to the corresponding author for the article. APPENDIX A 2005–2006 SAEM Grants Committee Members: Felix K. Ankel, MD Steven B. Bird, MD Clifton W. Callaway, MD, PhD, Chair Donna L. Carden, MD Leon L. Haley Jr., MD, MHSA Jason S. Haukoos, MD, MS Christopher J. Hogan, MD James F. Holmes Jr., MD, MPH Alan E. Jones, MD E. Brooke Lerner, PhD, EMT-P Frank LoVechhio, DO James C. McClay, MD David P. Milzman, MD Karin Przyklenk, PhD Daniel E. Rusyniak, MD Manish N. Shah, MD Benjamin C. Sun, MD Robert A. Swor, DO Scott T. Wilber, MD Robert Hodges Woolard, MD Robert O. Wright, MD, MPH Kelly D. Young, MD, MS 2006–2007 SAEM Grants Committee Members: Steven B. Bird, MD Clifton W. Callaway, MD, PhD John T. Finnell, MD Jason S. Haukoos, MD, MS James F. Holmes Jr., MD, MPH Alan E. Jones, MD Christopher King, MD E. Brooke Lerner, PhD Karin Przyklenk, PhD Richard Eric Rothman, MD, PhD Daniel E. Rusyniak, MD Manish N. Shah, MD Robert Woolard, MD Kelly D. Young, MD, MS, Chair
