1. 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

2. 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

3. 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

4. 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

5. 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

6. 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

7. 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

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

9. Questions?