Special Chat Virapongse, MD Barbara S. Martineau

Research

#{149} Scott

Emerson, MD, PhD V. Staab, MD

#{149} Edward

Resources

Research resources in academic radiology were investigated by analyzing the responses to a survey from 72 North American institutions. The questionnaire addressed five general areas: department size, departmental resources committed to research, availability of research training, research quality control, and research productivity. The highest correlates of grant productivity included measures of departmental resources committed to research, for example, space devoted to research, size of research budget, and full-time employee support for engineers, physicists, and chemists. In a regression model, measures of the number of engineers employed by a department, the number of attending staff, and the number of training lectures given by engineers were found to be most highly associated with dollar value of grant support. The average level of research resources available at responding institutions was generally low, despite a seemingly strong desire to do quality research. This is evidenced by a strong sentiment among respondents in favor of research training and quality control of research. Index terms: Radiology partmental management ologists,

research

Radiology

#{149} Special

1990;

I From K.C.P.L.,

deand

radi-

reports

and

of Radiology Biostatistics

(CV., (SE.),

of Florida College of Medicine, From the 1989 RSNA annual September 5. 1989; accepted

vember

7. Address

Watson

Clinic,

Lakeland

radiologists.

175:247-251

the Departments B.S.M.. E.V.S.)

University Gainesville. ing. Received

and

#{149} Radiology

reprint

requests

Radiology

Hills

Blvd.

to CV.,

Department. P0

Box

meetNo1600

95000,

Lakeland,

RSNA, See this

also issue.

I

the

editorial

by

Brody

(pp

37-38)

in

Radiology’

N academic

radiology, research is a major departmental objective and a necessity for the promotion of its staff. However, under the current cost-cutting climate, research mesources may be dwindling. How badby this reduction has affected adademic radiology remains speculative; however, questions are already being asked as to how research is currently being conducted in academic radiology (1,2). What are the key resource requirements needed to enhance proper research? Should research training and quality control be performed at the institutional level? In an attempt to answer these questions we sent out a survey to academic madiobogy chairmen throughout North America.

MATERIALS

AND

METHODS

A questionnaire was mailed to chairmen of 135 academic radiology departments identified by the Association of University The survey

Radiologists addressed

(AUR) listing. five important

an-

eas related to research: (a) departmental characteristics-name, location, size of physical space, number of examinations performed yearly, number of staff radiologists,

number

of fellows; search-funds mitted

of residents,

and

(b) resources (excluding

to research,

number

committed grants)

research

to recorn-

funds

as per-

centage located devoted support

of total budget, physical space alto research, equipment time to research purposes, research staff not funded by grants, seed

money

available

for

pilot

projects,

aver-

age research time provided for faculty (as well as ranking factors determining research time allocation, such as research productivity, seniority, and administrative duties); (c) research training-existence of departmental research training program, opinion regarding the need for such a program for residents and faculty, funds committed to research training, hours of lectures on research techniques, of

lectures

research

1990

C. P. Li, MD

#{149}

in Academic

types

FL 33804-5000.

King

lows, search

electives

and

on

research

for

the attendance

training

courses

Report

manship workshop given by the AUR; (d) research quality control-opinion as to the need for quality control, who performs it, and the number of hours devoted to it; and (e) research productivitydollar amount of gross grant support obtamed per year, total number of principal investigators,

and

the

number

of clinical

radiologists serving as principal investigators. For the majority of questions, the respondent was asked to characterize his department according to categories (eg, number of residents between zero and 10, 1 1 and

20,

etc),

although

explicit

values

were solicited for some questions (eg, percentage of FTE support for physicists). Chairmen were not asked for separate mesponses for nuclear medicine and radiation therapy. To quantify bias due to nonresponse to the survey, all articles published in Radiology and AIR for the 5 years 1984-1988 were classified according to the institutional affiliation of the first author. These journals were chosen due to their covenage of a wide spectrum of the radiologic subspecialties. For each of the 135 institutions

identified

resenting published

by

Statistical

AUR,

number journals

a count

rep-

of articles was obtained.

Analysis

The mined

frequency for each

for

respondents

all

the

the total in these

of response of the survey combined,

was deterquestions as well

as

within categories defined by the amount of grant support received by the departments. The Pearson correlation coefficient was computed to determine the conrelation between each of the variables and the variable measuring dollar amount of grant support. To assess the most important factors associated with the amount of grants received by a radiology department, a regression model was explored that modeled the level of grant support as a function of the variables related to departmental size, research resources, research training, and quality

techniques,

residents

and

of faculty such

as the

fel-

at regrants-

Abbreviations: versity

Radiologists.

AUR FTE

Association

of Uni-

full-time

employee.

247

Table 1 Number of Publications per Institution Classified by Response the Survey

to

Response

No Response

0-9 10-19 20-39 40-99 100

24 15 16 12 4

25 13 14 8 4

71*

64

*

One

the name

respondent

(of the 72) failed

of the institution

and

of 69 Institutions

Relative

to the Number

No.

No.of Publications

Total

Table 2 Matrix Distribution and Grant Acquisition Amount

*

Staff

Staff

of Grant

Funding

to provide

of Faculty

of Faculty

(X

60

>3,000 1,000-3,000 500-1,000 250-500 100-250

0 0 0 2 1

0 2 0 2 8

0 2 3 4 2

1 1 2 1 1

0 1 2 0 0

2 0 1 0 0

0 0 0 1 1

.74). Thus, there do not appear to be significant

248

Radiology

#{149}

Institutional

Research

Funds

100-200

(X $1,000)

Committed

200-300

Research

300-400

400-500

>500

>3,000

1

0

0

0

0

2

2

2

1

1

0

0

500-1,000 250-500 100-250

1 3 5

1 1 6

2

1

2

2

1

1

1

0

0

1 2 1

1

1

0

0

0

Three

27

institutions

failed

to respond

to questions

concerning

grant

funding.

4

Matrix Distribution Grant Acquisition

of

66

Institutions

Relative

to Available

Research

Amount of Grant Funding(X$l,000)*

RESULTS

due

Research resources in academic radiology.

Research resources in academic radiology were investigated by analyzing the responses to a survey from 72 North American institutions. The questionnai...
976KB Sizes 0 Downloads 0 Views