Rheumatology Research Foundation Clinician Scholar Educator Award: Fifteen Years Promoting Rheumatology Educators and Education.

The Rheumatology Research Foundation's Clinician Scholar Educator (CSE) award is a 3-year career development award supporting medical education research while providing opportunities for mentorship and collaboration. Our objective was to document the individual and institutional impact of the award since its inception, as well as its promise to strengthen the subspecialty of rheumatology. All 60 CSE Award recipients were surveyed periodically. Fifty-six of those 60 awardees (90%) responded to requests for survey information that included post-award activities, promotions, and further funding. Data were also collected from yearly written progress reports for each grant. Of the total CSE recipients to date, 48 of 60 (80%) are adult rheumatologists, 11 of 60 (18%) are pediatric rheumatologists, and 1 is an adult and pediatric rheumatologist. Two-thirds of survey respondents spend up to 30% of their total time in educational activities, and one-third spend greater than 30%. Thirty-one of the 60 CSE recipients (52%) have published a total of 86 medical education papers. Twenty-six of 52 (50%) had received an academic promotion following the award. Eleven awardees earned advanced degrees. We describe the creation and evolution of a grant program from a medical subspecialty society foundation and the impact on producing education research, individual identity formation, and ongoing support for educators. This community of rheumatology scholar educators now serves as an important resource at the national level for the American College of Rheumatology and its membership. We believe that this grant may serve as a model for other medical societies that want to promote education scholarship and leadership within their specialties.

Berman JR ，O'Rourke KS ，Kolasinski SL ，Aizer J ，Wheatley MJ ，Battistone MJ ，Siaton BC ，Criscione-Schreiber L ，Pillinger MH ，Lazaro DM ... -  《-》

The Value of Supporting Education Research in the Academic Environment: The Hospital for Special Surgery Academy of Rheumatology Medical Educators.

Medical education academies have been instrumental in providing greater recognition of and promotion for clinician-educators. However, producing education scholarship is essential for clinician-scholar-educator career advancement. Grant funding for education research and protected time to produce scholarship are still lacking for interested physicians, in part due to institutional budget constraints and competing priorities. The Hospital for Special Surgery Academy of Rheumatology Medical Educators was founded in 2011 to promote education scholarship through grants awarded to educators interested in research. Educators were asked to submit proposals aimed at the development of new teaching programs and curricular change. Selected applicants received up to $50,000 per year for one year. Grant money was obtained through directed fundraising from donors. Information from annual grant updates and survey responses from grant recipients in 2017 were used to assess the academy's effectiveness. Since 2012, 32 grants have been awarded, totaling $954,045 in funding. Recipients have produced national meeting abstracts, posters, oral presentations, and manuscripts and created unique curricula and electronic learning tools for medical students, residents, fellows, faculty, and patients. Four educators with demonstrated interest and research outcomes were identified during the pilot and received additional funding and support from a dedicated education research assistant. The academy and the innovations grants program highlight the talents of under-supported and under-recognized teaching faculty by allowing them to distinguish themselves academically as clinician-scholar-educators. The success of these educators emphasizes the clear advantages of a formalized structure to achieve the hospital's education goals. Next steps include providing support for a rheumatology fellow to develop an education research career rather than one in bench, clinical, or translational research.

Berman JR ，Aizer J ，Tiongson MD ，Bass AR ，Parrish EJ ，Robbins L ，Paget SA ... -  《-》

The vascular surgeon-scientist: a 15-year report of the Society for Vascular Surgery Foundation/National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-mentored Career Development Award Program.

The Society for Vascular Surgery (SVS) Foundation partnered with the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) of the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in 1999 to initiate a competitive career development program that provides a financial supplement to surgeon-scientists receiving NIH K08 or K23 career development awards. Because the program has been in existence for 15 years, a review of the program's success has been performed. Between 1999 and 2013, 41 faculty members applied to the SVS Foundation program, and 29 from 21 different institutions were selected as awardees, resulting in a 71% success rate. Three women (10%) were among the 29 awardees. Nine awardees (31%) were supported by prior NIH F32 or T32 training grants. Awardees received their K award at an average of 3.5 years from the start of their faculty position, at the average age of 39.8 years. Thirteen awardees (45%) have subsequently received NIH R01 awards and five (17%) have received Veterans Affairs Merit Awards. Awardees received their first R01 at an average of 5.8 years after the start of their K award at the average age of 45.2 years. The SVS Foundation committed $9,350,000 to the Career Development Award Program. Awardees subsequently secured $45,108,174 in NIH and Veterans Affairs funds, resulting in a 4.8-fold financial return on investment for the SVS Foundation program. Overall, 23 awardees (79%) were promoted from assistant to associate professor in an average of 5.9 years, and 10 (34%) were promoted from associate professor to professor in an average of 5.2 years. Six awardees (21%) hold endowed professorships and four (14%) have secured tenure. Many of the awardees hold positions of leadership, including 12 (41%) as division chief and two (7%) as vice chair within a department of surgery. Eight (28%) awardees have served as president of a regional or national society. Lastly, 47 postdoctoral trainees have been mentored by recipients of the SVS Foundation Career Development Program on training grants or postdoctoral research fellowships. The SVS Foundation Career Development Program has been an effective vehicle to promote the development and independence of vascular surgeon-scientists in the field of academic vascular surgery.

Kibbe MR ，Dardik A ，Velazquez OC ，Conte MS ，Society for Vascular Surgery Research Council ... -  《-》

Expanding the Field of Surgical Researchers: The Jahnigen Career Development Award.

Under a long-standing collaboration with the John A. Hartford Foundation (JAHF), the Atlantic Philanthropies (AP), and specialty societies in 10 targeted specialties, the American Geriatrics Society (AGS) has been working to improve quality of care provided to older adults by surgical and related medical specialists. To support and nurture future academic leaders, the Geriatrics-for-Specialists Initiative (GSI) established the Dennis W. Jahnigen Career Development Scholar Award (JCDA) program in 2002, with AP joining JAHF as a core funder of the awards in 2003. Commencing in 2011, the National Institute on Aging (NIA) launched the Grants for Early Medical/Surgical Specialists' Transition to Aging Research (GEMSSTAR) program, using an RO3 mechanism. Recipients of the JCDA and the GEMSSTAR are provided with 2 years of research support and networking opportunities with other scholars; 79 JCDA and 26 surgical and related medical specialty GEMSSTAR scholars have been funded through these award mechanisms, with AGS, JAHF, and surgical and related medical specialty societies providing matching support for 20 of the GEMSSTAR scholars for leadership development programs. One of the primary criteria for judging the overall success of the program was eventual transition of the award to a federally funded program, which was achieved when NIA launched the GEMSSTAR program in 2011.

Deiner S 《-》

Is the Distribution of Awards Gender-balanced in Orthopaedic Surgery Societies?

Society awards provide visibility and national recognition for physicians. Several studies have found that women were underrepresented as award recipients when compared with subspecialty workforce data. However, to our knowledge no studies have examined the gender distribution of award recipients in orthopaedic societies. Orthopaedic surgery remains among the least gender-diverse specialties in medicine. Particularly in academic practice, the increasing paucity of women with progressive rank may reflect unequal access to the currency for promotion, including national reputation and visibility. Therefore, information on orthopaedic awarding practices may help to identify and address challenges associated with recruiting, retaining, and promoting women in orthopaedics. (1) Since the year 2000, have women orthopaedic surgeons received awards in proportion to their society membership? (2) Are the awards granted to women equally distributed across the categories of leadership, humanitarianism, education, scientific investigation, resident/fellow scientific investigation, and diversity? (3) Does the gender distribution of award recipients differ for awards bestowed through a blinded process versus an unblinded process? Eighteen national, clinically focused orthopaedic societies in the United States were included. These societies offer a combined total of 69 awards; each award was studied from its earliest record through December 2018, resulting in a study period from 1973 to 2018. Each society provided the gender demographics of their membership in 2018. The proportion of women award recipients from 2000 to 2018 was compared with the proportion of women members in 2018 for each society. Awards were also categorized based on the six types of accomplishment they recognized (leadership, humanitarianism, education, scientific investigation, resident/fellow scientific investigation, and diversity), and whether they were granted through a blinded or unblinded selection process. Chi-square tests were used to compare the proportion of women receiving awards in various categories, and to compare the proportion of women who received awards through blinded selection processes versus unblinded selection processes. From 2000 to 2018, women received 8% (61 of 794) of all awards and represented 9% (5359 of 59,597) of all society members. Two societies had an underrepresentation of women award recipients compared with their society membership. We found that women were not represented proportionally across award categories. Women were more likely to receive a diversity award than a leadership award (odds ratio 12.0 [95% CI 3.1 to 45.7]; p < 0.001), and also more likely to receive an education award than a leadership award (OR 4.1 [95% CI 1.3 to 12.7]). From 1973 to 2018, 17 of 22 the leadership awards offered by societies have never been granted to a woman. Finally, women were more likely to receive awards bestowed through a blinded process than an unblinded process. Women earned 11% (30 of 285) of awards bestowed through a blinded award process and 6% (31 of 509) of awards bestowed through an unblinded award process (OR 1.8 [95% CI 1.1 to 3.1]; p = 0.03). The percent of women award recipients was generally proportional to membership overall and in most societies. However, on a national workforce level, the proportion of women award recipients is lower than the proportion of women in academic orthopaedics, which has been reported by others to be about 13%, suggesting that women in academic orthopaedics may be underrepresented as award recipients. Additionally, women were less likely to receive leadership awards than awards of other types, which suggests that women are not being recognized as leaders in orthopaedics. Women were also more likely to receive awards granted through unblinded processes, which raises concern that there may be implicit bias in orthopaedic awarding practices. We encourage societies to examine the inclusiveness of their awards selection processes and to track the demographic information of award recipients over time to measure progress toward equal representation. Creating standardized award criteria, including women on selection committees, requiring the consideration of diverse nominees, and implicit bias training for selection committees may help to reduce bias in awarding practices.

Gerull KM ，Holten A ，Rhea L ，Cipriano C ... -  《-》