Using the NIH Research, Condition and Disease Categorization Database for research advocacy: Schizophrenia research at NIMH as an example.

In 2008 the National Institutes of Health established the Research, Condition and Disease Categorization Database (RCDC) that reports the amount spent by NIH institutes for each disease. Its goal is to allow the public "to know how the NIH spends their tax dollars," but it has been little used. The RCDC for 2018 was used to assess 428 schizophrenia-related research projects funded by the National Institute of Mental Health. Three senior psychiatrists independently rated each on its likelihood ("likely", "possible", "very unlikely") of improving the symptoms and/or quality of life for individuals with schizophrenia within 20 years. At least one reviewer rated 386 (90%), and all three reviewers rated 302 (71%), of the research projects as very unlikely to provide clinical improvement within 20 years. Reviewer agreement for the "very unlikely" category was good; for the "possible" category was intermediate; and for the "likely" category was poor. At least one reviewer rated 30 (7%) of the research projects as likely to provide clinical improvement within 20 years. The cost of the 30 projects was 5.5% of the total NIMH schizophrenia-related portfolio or 0.6% of the total NIMH budget. Study results confirm previous 2016 criticisms that the NIMH schizophrenia-related research portfolio disproportionately underfunds clinical research that might help people currently affected. Although the results are preliminary, since the RCDC database has not previously been used in this manner and because of the subjective nature of the assessment, the database would appear to be a useful tool for disease advocates who wish to ascertain how NIH spends its public funds.

Psychotherapy Research and the NIMH: An Either/Or or Both/And Research Agenda?

There is a need for psychotherapy research to determine the effective, nonspecific or shared elements of psychotherapy regardless of therapy school. In an apparent "either/or" rather than "both/and" choice, the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) has committed its research resources to study of neural mechanisms and biomarkers, while greatly reducing funding for research into clinical methods, including psychotherapy. This column explores the potential effect of this decision on patient care and reviews questions raised by some about whether the underlying "big idea" behind the NIMH research approach is supported by the results of several decades of brain and genomics research. Patients are left to hope for clinically meaningful research findings concerning brain or gene mechanisms of mental disorders, as if they are just around the corner, when the actual benefit of such research likely remains decades away.

The Association Between NIMH Funding and h-index in Psychiatry.

OBJECTIVE: Academic productivity is measured under many domains: number of high impact publications, objective bibliometrics, securing extra-mural funding, etc. Citation impact is measured by an objective bibliometric called h-index. Securing funding from the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) is considered prestigious in the field of psychiatry. It is unknown if NIMH takes into consideration the author's h-index during the grant review process. The goal of this study was to determine the correlation between a principal investigator's (PI's) h-index and the NIMH funding. METHOD: Correlational analysis was conducted on publicly available 2012 NIMH funding data to assess the relationship between NIMH funding and a PI's h-index. A simple linear regression was calculated to predict the h-index based on the amount of funding offered to the PI. RESULTS: A total of 139 PIs and their corresponding h-index and NIMH funding (direct, indirect, and total cost) were included. A strong correlation was found between h-index and NIMH funding: direct cost (r = 0.632, p < 0.001); indirect cost (r = 0.570, p < 0.001); and total cost (r = 0.639, p < 0.001). Total funding significantly predicted h-index, ß = 0.821, t (2.599), p < 0.01, and explained a significant proportion of variance in h-index, R 2 = 0.410, F (3, 119) = 27.59, p < 0.001. CONCLUSION: A strong relationship was seen between h-index and securing NIMH funding. Thus, h-index stands out as a reliable measure for assessing the impact of scholarly contributions in academic psychiatry and can be used as an adjunct for performance evaluations, appointment, and promotions in academia.

Implications of RDoC for the research and practice of psychotherapy.

The field of psychotherapy is at an important juncture. Recent changes in the field include (a) the skeptical reception of the fifth edition of the Diagnostic and Statistical Manual and (b) NIMH's prioritization of an alternative classification system to guide translational and intervention research. Moreover, (c) the field continues to be held accountable to governmental agencies and third-party payers to demonstrate its empirical basis. Thus, psychological research as it relates to the practice of psychotherapy is at a crossroads. In this article, we provide a brief overview of several generations of psychotherapy outcome research, including the consequences that followed in the 1980s as psychotherapy research moved toward randomized controlled trials for clinical disorders. We delineate the inherent strengths and limitations of this movement and address how the NIMH has recently responded with the Research Domain Criteria (RDoC). We then address philosophical and practical implications of the emphasis on a neuroscientific conceptualization of psychological problems. Finally, we discuss opportunities for a next generation of convergent science that incorporates, rather than replaces, psychosocial variables across stages of translational research and treatment development.

Mind the gap: neuroscience literacy and the next generation of psychiatrists.

The National Institute of Mental Health seeks to address the gap between modern neuroscience and psychiatric training. The authors describe a two-pronged approach: first, to identify and support trainees in clinical neuroscience and second, to promote neuroscience literacy in psychiatric residency programs.

Institutional profile: National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke and National Institute of Mental Health.

The nervous system is consistently viewed as a target of high interest for stem cell-based therapeutics. In the USA, the National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke (NINDS) and the National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH) are the two largest funders of neuroscience-related research within the NIH. Research spanning the spectrum of basic, translational and clinical science is conducted both on the NIH campus and through funding of extramural research organizations across the USA, and, to a lesser extent, worldwide. In this brief survey, we will present an overview of stem cell-related activities at the two neuroscience-focused NIH institutes.

Gender and ethnic diversity in NIMH-funded clinical trials: review of a decade of published research.

A total of 379 NIMH-funded clinical trials published between 1995 and 2004 in five major mental health journals were assessed on their inclusion of women and racial/ethnic groups in their study recruitment. Findings showed that whereas most of the studies reported gender information and gender representation was balanced across studies, less than half of the studies provided complete racial/ethnic information. All racial/ethnic groups except Whites and African Americans were underrepresented, a pattern that has not improved significantly over the last decade. Less than half of the studies had potential for subgroup analyses by gender and race/ethnicity.