MERMAID October 13, 2017 Funding Your Medical Education Research Bob Arnold, MD Carla Spagnoletti MD, MS Guest Panelists: Mike Elnicki, MD and Melissa McNeil MD, MPH

Overview Current state of medical education research funding Benefits to funding medical education research Approach to finding funding: overview and panel discussion How Pitt’s Office of Institutional Advancement can help you

Current State: Costs > Funding Survey of 1st authors of original med ed research studies conducted in US from 13 prominent journals Assessed “costs”(work effort, time to conduct, resources used) and funding 84% RR (243 studies): 30% curricula, 30% survey, 13% qualitative, 6% evaluation of scale/tool, 21% other Mean # published med ed studies per respondent = 8.5 Median cost = $24,471 (11,531-63,808) Majority cost (80%) associated with author effort Respondents underestimated costs (median reported $10,000) 29.6% studies had “funding” Median amount funding obtained = $15,000 (5,000-66,500) Funding associated with grant writing training (OR 2.4), more publications than mean (OR 2.3) Median cost ($37,315)-Median funding ($15,000) = Deficit ($22,315) Bottom line: Majority of published medical education research is not formally funded and those that are, are underfunded Work effort measured in %FTE for all authors, research assistants, statisticians Resources included: equipment, data entry, secretarial support, postage, other No assoc b/n obtainment of funding and academic rank, %effort dedicated to research, fellowship training Reed et al. JAMA 2005

Funding Improves Quality of Medical Education Research Same study data (243 studies) Authors developed 10-item instrument (MERSQI) Study design, sampling (# institutions, RR), data (subjective vs objective), validity, analysis, and outcomes (satisfaction→patient/system-level) Max score 18 Mean MERSQI score 9.95 (range 5-16) MERSQI score associated with “expert” ratings (correlation coeff 0.73); 3-year citation rate; journal impact factor; prior publications Score independently associated with funding amount (esp >$20,000) Correlation coeff 0.95 MERSQI : medical education research study quality instrument Reed, et al. JAMA 2007

Funding Improves Medical Education Research Productivity Structured one-on-one interviews of both funded and unfunded applicants to small education grants program sponsored by AMA Max funding per project $5000 over 18 months 9 funded applicants (all studies implemented) and 6 unfunded applicants (5 studies implemented) Funding associated with: Frequency and intensity of collaboration among institutions (3.8 collaborators vs 1.8) Longevity of collaboration (62.5% vs 16%) Number of scholarly products (6.6 vs 2.8 products per project) Collaborative Grants Program: promotes collaborative projects between AMA group on educational affairs, special interest groups, and medical schools *many published descriptions of programs developed to support med ed research but all have only reported outcomes without control group. El-Sawi, et al. Academic Medicine 2009

Implications… →Funding results in increased quality and productivity →Leads to increase publication likelihood and quantity →Total #, average impact factor, and number of citations of one’s publications contribute to promotion eligibility and time to promotion, even in clinician-educator promotion tracks →Leads to ability to study higher level outcomes → Compelling results can lead to standardization of medical education practices →Enhanced patient care and improved health care processes and systems Bottom line: Finding funding for medical education research is IMPORTANT

Panel Discussion-Where to Find Funding Bob Arnold, MD Regional foundations Mike Elnicki, MD National organizations Melissa McNeil, MD, MPH Negotiating new sources of funding Carla Spagnoletti, MD, MS Pitt/UPMC funding sources

University of Pittsburgh Office of Institutional Advancement Denise Mieszkowski Foundation Relations Specialist Medical and Health Sciences Foundation

Questions?