The following is a summary of “Scholarly activity following National Institutes of Health Women’s Reproductive Health Research K12 training—a cohort study,” published in the OCTOBER 2023 issue of Obstetrics and Gynecology by McCoy, et al.

The inadequacy of National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding to address basic reproductive health for common female conditions is exacerbated by low success rates in grant applications by obstetrician-gynecologists. For a study, researchers sought to explore the scholarly productivity of individuals supported by the Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and Human Development Women’s Reproductive Health Research K12 career development award, specifically designed to advance careers among obstetrician-gynecologist physician-scientists.

A cohort study focused on individuals who completed at least 2 years of Women’s Reproductive Health Research training by June 30, 2015, with a subsequent 5-year follow-up. The earliest training start date was December 1, 1998. Primary outcomes were derived from public data sources, including National Institutes of Health RePORTER, PubMed, and iCite. These outcomes encompassed the following: Number of total and R01 National Institutes of Health grants as principal investigator; Numbers of total, first author, and last author publications; Median and highest publication impact factor measured by the relative citation ratio. Secondary outcomes were obtained from an email survey subcohort and included the total number of research grants; Federally funded grants; Number of National Institutes of Health grants as a coinvestigator, Institutional promotions and academic appointments, National and National Institutes of Health leadership roles, Career and mentorship satisfaction. Outcome assessments were recorded at 5, 10, and 15 years postgraduation. The anonymized data were categorized into three groups based on Women’s Reproductive Health Research completion dates: June 30, 2005, 2010, and 2015. Temporal trends were analyzed, and results were stratified by gender, number of awarded grant cycles (1–2 vs. 3–4), and specialty type. Statistical analyses utilized Fisher exact or Pearson chi-square tests and Mantel–Haenszel trend tests.

The cohort (N=178) distribution based on graduation completion date was on or before June 30, 2005 (32%), July 1, 2005, to June 30, 2010 (34%), and July 1, 2010, to June 30, 2015 (34%). The majority were female (64%), with maternal–fetal medicine training being the most prevalent (30%), followed by no fellowship (28%). Among the participants, 40% secured additional National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding as principal investigators, 25% received at least 1 R01 grant, and 13% obtained 2 to 5 R01s. Of the scholars, 31% had more than 10 first-author publications, 39% had more than 10 last-author publications, and 63% had 25 or more publications. The highest relative citation ratio had a median of 8.07 (interquartile range, 4.20–15.16), with 71% of scholars having a relative citation ratio ≥5, indicating a 5-fold greater publication impact than other NIH-funded scientists in similar research areas. No differences were observed by gender, institution, or temporal trends. Of the full cohort, 45.7% responded to the survey, with the majority identifying as women (73%) and White (74%).

The study results indicated that the infrastructure facilitated by an institutional K award is a beneficial career development mechanism for obstetrician-gynecologists, primarily women surgeons. The award may be crucial in addressing the recognized gender-based inequities in National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. The findings underscored the importance of targeted initiatives, such as the Women’s Reproductive Health Research K12 career development award, in fostering women’s career advancement and success in obstetrics and gynecology. By providing support and opportunities for research and scholarly productivity, these mechanisms contribute to a more equitable distribution of NIH funding, potentially mitigating disparities that have historically affected women in scientific and medical research.

Source: ajog.org/article/S0002-9378(23)00452-0/fulltext