Hostname: page-component-77c89778f8-m8s7h Total loading time: 0 Render date: 2024-07-16T20:19:38.903Z Has data issue: false hasContentIssue false
  • English
  • Français

Important returns on investment: an evaluation of a national research grants competition in emergency medicine

Published online by Cambridge University Press:  21 May 2015

Jaime Bawden ,
Namdar Manouchehri ,
Cristina Villa-Roel ,
Eric Grafstein  and
Brian H. Rowe
Jaime Bawden
Affiliation:
Faculty of Medicine, National University of Ireland, Galway, Ireland Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.
Namdar Manouchehri
Affiliation:
Department of Surgery, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.
Cristina Villa-Roel
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.
Eric Grafstein
Affiliation:
Emergency Department, St. Paul's Hospital, Vancouver, BC
Brian H. Rowe*
Affiliation:
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta, Edmonton, Alta.
*
Department of Emergency Medicine, University of Alberta, 1G1.43, Walter C. Mackenzie Health Sciences Centre, 8440–112 St., Edmonton AB T6G 2B7; brian.rowe@ualberta.ca

Abstract

Core share and HTML view are not available for this content. However, as you have access to this content, a full PDF is available via the ‘Save PDF’ action button.
Objective:

We sought to examine scholarly outcomes of the projects receiving research grants from the Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians (CAEP) during the first 10 years of national funding (i.e., between 1996 and 2005).

Methods:

We sent email surveys to 62 emergency medicine (EM) researchers who received funding from CAEP. We focused our data collection on grant deliverables and opinions using a 1–7 Likert scale with regard to the value of the award.

Results:

Fifty-eight recipients responded to our survey. Grants were most commonly awarded to residents (21 [36%]), followed by senior (16 [28%]) and junior (13 [22%]) emergency staff. Twenty-six applicants from Ontario and 11 from Quebec received the majority of the grants. Overall, 51 projects were completed at the time of contact and, from these, 39 manuscripts were published or in press. Abstract presentations were more common, with a median of 2 abstracts presented per completed project. Abstract presentations for the completed projects were documented locally (23), nationally (39) and internationally (37). Overall, 19 projects received additional funding. The median amount funded was Can$4700 with an interquartile range of $3250–$5000. Respondents felt CAEP funding was critical to completing their projects and felt strongly that dedicated EM research funding should be continued to stimulate productivity.

Conclusion:

Overall, the CAEP Research Grants Competition has produced impressive results. Despite the small sums available, the grants have been important for ensuring study completion and for securing additional funding. CAEP and similar EM organizations need to develop a more robust funding approach so that larger grant awards and more researchers can be supported on an annual basis.

Résumé

RÉSUMÉObjectif:

Nous avons cherché à examiner les résultats scientifiques des projets qui ont reçu des subventions de recherche de l'Association canadienne des médecins d'urgence (ACMU) au cours des 10 premières années de financement national (c.-à-d. entre 1996 et 2005).

Méthodes:

Nous avons envoyé par courriel un questionnaire à 62 chercheurs en médecine d'urgence qui ont reçu du financement de l'ACMU. Nous avons axé notre collecte de données sur les produits à livrer et les opinions, en utilisant une échelle Likert en 7 points portant sur la valeur de la subvention.

Résultats:

Cinquante-huit lauréats ont répondu à notre questionnaire. Les subventions étaient le plus souvent accordées aux résidents (21 [36 %]), suivis du personnel d'urgence occupant des postes supérieurs (16 [28 %]) et de débutants (13 [22 %]). La majorité des subventions a été accordée à 26 candidats de l'Ontario et 11 du Québec. Dans l'ensemble, 51 projets étaient terminés lors de l'entrée en contact avec les candidats et, de ce nombre, 39 manuscrits avaient été publiés ou étaient sous presse. Les présentations de résumés étaient plus fréquentes, avec une médiane de 2 présentations de résumés par projet achevé. Les résumés présentés concernant les projets achevés ont été documentés à l'échelon local (23), à l'échelon national (39) et à l'échelle internationale (37). Dans l'ensemble, 19 projets ont bénéficié d'un financement supplémentaire. Le montant médian de la subvention était de 4700 $ CA (intervalle interquartile de 3250 à 5000 $). Les répondants étaient d'avis que le financement de l'ACMU était essentiel pour mener à bien leurs projets et croyaient fermement qu'il importe de continuer d'offrir des subventions de recherche axée sur la médecine d'urgence afin de stimuler la productivité.

Conclusion:

Dans l'ensemble, le concours de subventions de recherche de l'ACMU a donné des résultats impressionnants. Malgré les faibles montants disponibles, les subventions ont grandement contribué à assurer l'achèvement des projets et à obtenir un financement supplémentaire. L'ACMU et des organisations en médecine d'urgence similaires doivent développer un programme de financement plus robuste pour pouvoir accorder des subventions plus substantielles et appuyer plus de chercheurs sur une base annuelle.

Keywords

emergency medicineevaluationresearchfundinggrants
Type
Original Research • Recherche originale
Information
Canadian Journal of Emergency Medicine , Volume 12 , Issue 1 , January 2010 , pp. 33 - 38
Copyright
Copyright © Canadian Association of Emergency Physicians 2009

References

REFERENCES

1. Holroyd, BR, Rowe, BH, Sinclair, D. Current political issues facing emergency medicine in Canada. Emerg Med Australas 2004;16:190–4.Google Scholar
2. Rowe, BH, Sukhrani, N, Sher, A. CAEP/AMUQ 1999 scientific abstract competition: results and future directions. CJEM 1999;1:165–8.Google Scholar
3. Institute of Medicine Committee on the Future of Emergency Care in the U.S. Health System. Hospital-based emergency care: at the breaking point. Washington (DC): The National Academies Press; 2006.Google Scholar
4. Henderson, SO, Brestky, P. Predictors of academic productivity in emergency medicine. Acad Emerg Med 2003;10:1009–11.Google Scholar
5. Grants and awards programs. Lansing (MI): Society for Academic Emergency Medicine; 2008 Available: http://www.saem.org/saemdnn/GrantsAwards/tabid/68/Default.aspx (accessed 2009 Nov 17).Google Scholar
6. Young, KD, for the 2005–2006 Society for Academic Emergency Medicine Grants Committee. Productivity and career paths of previous recipients of Society for Academic Emergency Medicine research grant awards. Acad Emerg Med 2008;15:560–6.Google Scholar
7. Scherer, RW, Langenberg, P. Full publication of results initially presented in abstracts: revisited. Cochrane database of methodology reviews: Chichester (UK): John Wiley & Sons Ltd; 2005.Google Scholar
8. Ospina, MB, Kelly, K, Klassen, TP, et al. Publication bias of randomized controlled trials in emergency medicine. Acad Emerg Med 2006;13:102–8.Google Scholar
9. Holmes, JF, Sokolove, PE, Panacek, EA Ten-year experience with an emergency medicine resident research project requirement. Acad Emerg Med 2006;13:575–9.Google Scholar
10. Handel, DA, Sklar, DP, Hollander, JE, et al. Executive summary: the Institute of Medicine report and the future of academic emergency medicine: the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine and Association of Academic Chairs in Emergency Medicine Panel: Association of American Medical Colleges annual meeting, October 28, 2006. Acad Emerg Med 2007;14:261–7.Google Scholar
11. Paller, MS, Cerra, FB. Investing in research: the impact of one academic health center’s research grant program. Acad Med 2006;81:520–6.Google Scholar