Changes in the National Cancer Institute's R01 workforce: growth, aging, retention, and policy implications.

Scientific progress and discovery of preventions and cures for life-threatening diseases depend on the vitality of the biomedical research workforce. We analyzed the workforce of cancer researchers applying for and receiving R01 awards from the National Cancer Institute (NCI) from fiscal years 1990 to 2016, the last year prior to implementation of the Next Generation Researchers Initiative. Here we report that the NCI R01 Principal Investigator (PI) workforce expanded 1.4-fold and aged over this time frame. We tracked 9 age groups and found that the number of PIs in the 3 oldest groups increased dramatically, in contrast with the younger groups. Sustained increases in the number of funded older PIs stemmed from increases in the number of older PIs submitting applications, rather than higher funding rates for older PIs. The decline in the number of funded younger PIs was driven in part by (a) a marked increase in time from PhD degree to first R01 application and award, as well as (b) a decrease in retention of PIs in the funded R01 workforce beyond their first R01 award. The NCI is using these and other analyses to inform strategies and policies for attracting, supporting, and retaining meritorious early-career researchers.

NIH-Funded CBPR: Self-Reported Community Partner and Investigator Perspectives.

The community-based participatory research (CBPR) approach across health contexts has matured greatly over the last 20 years. Though contributions to the literature on the development and effectiveness of CBPR interventions have grown, the number of publications on the function and evaluation of actual community-research partnerships has not kept pace. To help address that gap, we searched National Institutes of Health archival data and identified a set of 489 CBPR projects including collaboration-building, exploratory/pilot, research, and program project grants. We found community partner contact information commonly was absent from grant records and contacted principal investigators (PIs) for community-partner contact information. Subsequently, we built upon established measures to ask principal investigators and community partners for their perceptions of participation in NIH-funded CBPR projects. Many principal investigators and community partners reported existing collaborations-between academicians and community organizations as well as among community organizations. Partners tended to agree on the appropriateness of funding levels to accomplish projects and on the community partners' ability to recruit and retain participants, collect data, and implement interventions. Partners differed in perceptions of participation in research design, data analyses, manuscript and presentation production, and dissemination of findings. Suggestions include collection of lead community partner information without undue burden and increased standard education and involvement of community organizations in research vocabulary and practices.

Piloting an approach to rapid and automated assessment of a new research initiative: Application to the National Cancer Institute's Provocative Questions initiative.

Funders of biomedical research are often challenged to understand how a new funding initiative fits within the agency's portfolio and the larger research community. While traditional assessment relies on retrospective review by subject matter experts, it is now feasible to design portfolio assessment and gap analysis tools leveraging administrative and grant application data that can be used for early and continued analysis. We piloted such methods on the National Cancer Institute's Provocative Questions (PQ) initiative to address key questions regarding diversity of applicants; whether applicants were proposing new avenues of research; and whether grant applications were filling portfolio gaps. For the latter two questions, we defined measurements called focus shift and relevance, respectively, based on text similarity scoring. We demonstrate that two types of applicants were attracted by the PQs at rates greater than or on par with the general National Cancer Institute applicant pool: those with clinical degrees and new investigators. Focus shift scores tended to be relatively low, with applicants not straying far from previous research, but the majority of applications were found to be relevant to the PQ the application was addressing. Sensitivity to comparison text and inability to distinguish subtle scientific nuances are the primary limitations of our automated approaches based on text similarity, potentially biasing relevance and focus shift measurements. We also discuss potential uses of the relevance and focus shift measures including the design of outcome evaluations, though further experimentation and refinement are needed for a fuller understanding of these measures before broad application.