Abstract
Context: During the past 20 years, colleges of osteopathic medicine (COMs) have made several advances in research that have substantially improved the osteopathic medical profession and the health of the US population. Furthering the understanding of research at COMs, particularly the factors influencing the attainment of extramural funds, is highly warranted and coincides with the missions of most COMs and national osteopathic organizations.
Objectives: To describe bibliometric measures (numbers of peer-reviewed publications [ie, published articles] and citations of these publications, impact indices) at COMs from 2006 through 2010 and to examine statistical associations between these measures and the amount of National Institutes of Health (NIH) research funds awarded to COMs in 2006 and 2010.
Methods: A customized, systematic search of the Web of Science database was used to obtain bibliometric measures for 28 COMs. For the analyses, the bibliometric measures were summed or averaged over a 5-year period (2006 through 2010). The NIH database was used to obtain the amount of NIH funds for research grants and contracts received by the 28 COMs. Bivariate and multivariate statistical procedures were used to explore relationships between bibliometric measures and NIH funding amounts.
Results: The COMs with 2010 NIH funding, compared with COMs without NIH funding, had greater numbers of publications and citations and higher yearly average impact indices. Funding from the NIH in 2006 and 2010 was positively and significantly correlated with the numbers of publications, citations, and citations per publication and impact indices. The regression analysis indicated that 63.2% and 38.5% of the total variance in 2010 NIH funding explained by the model (adjusted R2=0.74) was accounted for by 2006 NIH funding and the combined bibliometric (ie, publications plus citations), respectively.
Conclusion: Greater scholarly output leads to the procurement of more NIH funds for research at COMs.
Colleges of osteopathic medicine (COMs) have made great strides in research during the past 20 years.
1,2 The total amount of research funding secured by COMs in 2004 was approximately $101.7 million, up from $16.6 million in 1989.
1,2 (When adjusted for inflation in 2010 dollars, these totals are $117.4 million and $29.2 million, respectively.) The American Osteopathic Association (AOA), recognizing that support and encouragement of quality scientific research is critical for the osteopathic medical profession, plays a vital role at the start of the funding process. To stimulate scholarly activity, the AOA Council on Research (formerly the Bureau of Research) provides modest support—often termed “seed grants”—to investigators and trainees at COMs to help them gain visibility in the broader medical community and within federal funding agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH).
3 Rose and Prozialeck
4 reported that awards made by the AOA Bureau of Research between 1995 and 2001 helped grantees secure an additional $5.7 million in extramural funds.
The NIH was the primary funder of research at COMs—as it is for most allopathic medical schools—accounting for $60.4 million of $101.7 million (59%) of the total funds. This amount is more than 7 times that of the next identifiable contributor (“Other Federal”), which gave $8.5 million.
1,5 On a yearly basis, the NIH allocates billions of dollars for health research and typically provides nearly half of its funds for research at US medical schools.
4 In 2009, however, of the approximately $11 billion given to medical schools, only approximately $135 million (1.2%) was granted to COMs
4; COMs accounted for approximately 20% of all medical schools at that time. Given the importance of NIH funding to research at COMs but the disproportionate amount awarded to COMs, an investigation of the factors related to the securing of NIH funding by COMs is highly warranted.
Previous assessments of research productivity at COMs
1,2 have been limited in number and scope; they have focused primarily on describing the characteristics of funded research projects, such as the amount and number of grants. To our knowledge, no systematically conducted scientific reports are available regarding correlates or predictors of research funding at COMs, although Prozialeck
7 offered anecdotal and speculative suggestions about factors that influence research productivity by COM faculty. Furthermore, some researchers
8,9 have underscored the weaknesses (eg, inadequate use of standard statistical methods) of
U.S. News & World Report, the most commonly cited and referenced ranking of the nation's colleges, which may lead to biased outcomes. For example, every COM in the research medical school rankings
10 is listed as “Rank Not Published” or “Unranked” either because they are in the bottom quarter of the research medical schools or because the school did not supply the
Report with enough key statistical data to be numerically ranked.
11
Bibliometrics is an array of methods that examines the influence of research areas, researchers, or research products (eg, journal articles) in a given field of study.
12-14 These methods may, for example, comprise counting total publications (ie, published articles) or counting the average number of citations per publications. Bibliometric measures are used to calculate journal impact factors, develop benchmarks, and coordinate research activities.
12,15,16 Although the object of some criticism (eg, self-citation bias), these measures nevertheless accurately depict scholarly communication patterns, correlate with peer-review ratings, predict emerging fields of research, show disciplinary influences, and map various types of collaboration.
17-20 Germane to a primary motivation for the current study, bibliometric measures appear to be important for informing funding decisions. A majority (64%)
21 of NIH grants result in an article in a mainstream scientific journal, and the number of articles produced is directly related to the amount of NIH awards made to the medical schools. Other studies
5,22,23 also have shown strong linear relationships between bibliometric measures and funding for research. An evaluation of bibliometric measures may provide insights into NIH funding at COMs, especially if several measures derived from sound methodologic approaches are integrated.
5
The objectives of the present study were to determine bibliometric measures at COMs and to examine associations between measures generated between 2006 and 2010 and the amount of research funding COMs received from the NIH in the fiscal years 2006 and 2010. The current study is important because it focuses on bibliometric measures from COMs, which, to our knowledge, have not been previously published. Thus, we hypothesize that the data on bibliometrics could establish benchmarks for more productive research at COMs and thus help COMs improve their ability to procure NIH funds.