Abstract
Abstract
Background:
The Surgical Infection Society (SIS) through its foundation (FDTN) confers awards to individuals who demonstrate interest in researching infection in the surgical setting. We sought to characterize the research output from prior award recipients and determine the impact of these awards on the individual and the SIS.
Methods:
The SIS website was queried for the names of all past award recipients. A MEDLINE search of the recipients was performed. Total number of publications and publications in the society's journal, Surgical Infections (SI), were identified. Gender and leadership positions within SIS were determined. Meeting attendance and participation were assessed. Donations by scholarship recipient to the FDTN were evaluated.
Results:
Between 1984 and 2012, 116 individuals received an SIS award or scholarship. Of these, 72% were male. There were 101 scholarships awarded, totaling nearly $3 million. Of the 19 new Junior Faculty Scholarships awarded, four were to consecutive recipients (CR). There were 11 clinical evaluative award scholarships awarded, three to CR. There were 100 Resident/Fellow scholarships awarded, and of these, 22 were awarded to CR. Past recipients had multiple publications (median total publications = 27; interquartile range (IQR): Nine to 62) and published multiple papers on the topic for which they received an award (median two; IQR: Zero to four). Recipients did not publish in SI (median SI publications = zero; IQR: Zero to one). There was no substantial difference in the number of publications by gender. Multiple awards (MA) were conferred to 26 (22%) individuals. Six (5.1%) assumed an executive position within SIS, two (1.7%) became SIS president. Those who received MA were more likely to serve as an officer than those who only received one award (15% vs. 2%, p = 0.02).
Conclusions:
Scholarships have a large benefit for individual recipients; however, the benefit to the society remains harder to quantify.
T
Numerous societies offer awards and scholarships to promote research of young investigators. There has been limited publication on measuring the success or impact of this practice [1–7]. As physicians' time gets spread over more areas and there are increasing pressures to be “clinically” productive, it is essential that both societies and individuals optimize the impact and success of fellowships. Ideally, there should be a positive impact to both the society and the individual.
The purpose of this study was to summarize the fellowship scholarships that have been awarded by the SIS. We sought to determine benchmarks that evaluate the potential impact and benefit of the scholarships to both the individual awardee and the society. Specifically, we were interested if there were any differences between the awardees based on the time they received the reward, as either a resident trainee or junior faculty.
Patients and Methods
The SIS maintains a list of all awardees with their respective awards on the society's website (sisna.org) and in their archives. This list was cross-referenced with award disbursement data from 1998 through 2012, which was provided by the SIS. The award recipient's gender, type of award, and status as a resident or attending at the time of the first award was recorded.
To study the potential impact and benefit of the awards, three separate but related categories were evaluated (Fig. 1). They were as follows: Potential impact and benefit to the individual awardee, potential mutual impact and benefit to the awardee and SIS, and potential impact and benefit to the Society. Separate information was evaluated for each group.
Diagram of metrics analyzed.
To evaluate the potential impact and benefit to the individual awardee, we specifically evaluated the number and type of awards given, the dollars awarded, and the number of publications obtained by the awardee. To evaluate the potential impact and benefit to the individual scholarship winner and the Society (aka mutual benefit), we evaluated the status of membership to the SIS, poster and podium presentations given, activity as an officer in SIS, and publications. To evaluate the potential impact and benefit to the society, we evaluated the registration to yearly meetings and donation practices. Comparisons were specifically made between resident awardees and faculty awardees.
To evaluate research productivity, a literature search was performed in PubMed on each award recipient specifically looking at total number of publications, number of publications before and after their first award, number of publications on the topic of infection, number of publications on the topic for which they were awarded a scholarship, and the number of publications in the society's journal, Surgical Infections.
Award recipient contribution to the SIS was evaluated using the following metrics: Current SIS membership, meeting attendance, participation at meetings, and total monies donated to the SIS. Current SIS membership for each award recipient was determined via the use of the SIS website's “Find a Member” function. Registration information for the annual SIS meeting was available for the years 2010 through 2012 and was used to determine meeting attendance. The annual meeting program information listing podium and poster presentations was available for the years 2003 through 2012. This information was used to determine award recipient participation at meetings. The total number of podium presentations and poster presentations for which each award recipient was listed as an author were recorded. Donation information was available from 1996 through 2012.
Data was analyzed using SPSS for Windows™, version 20 (SPSS Inc., Chicago, IL). Numerical data were compared using the Student t-test or a non-parametric test as appropriate. Categorical data were compared using either the χ-squared test or Fisher exact test. A p value of less than or equal to 0.05 was considered statistically significant.
Results
From 1984 through 2012 the SIS has granted scholarship awards to 93 recipients. Information on the amount of the monetary award was available for 49 recipients who received their awards after 1998. The total amount of money that has been awarded is $2,520,000. Seventy percent of the awardees were male. There were 12 individuals who received faculty awards, 78 individuals who received resident/in training awards, and three individuals who received both awards.
Benefit and impact to the individual awardee
The average amount awarded to an individual was $51,429 with a standard deviation of $22,661. The range of money awarded to an individual was from $20,000 to $130,000. The median amount awarded was $40,000 with an inter-quartile range (IQR) of $40,000–$50,000. There was no difference in the amount of scholarship money awarded by gender (male median scholarship award $40,000; IQR $40,000–$50,000 vs. female median scholarship award $40,000; IQR $40,000–$80,000, p = 0.11). A comparison of the dollar amounts given to residents versus to faculty is illustrated in Table 1. The amount given to the three awardees who received both awards is also shown on this table. There was demonstration of equal scholarship money given to residents and faculty.
IQR = interquartile range; NS = not significant.
Award recipients had numerous publications in peer-reviewed journals (median number of publications = 27; IQR 9–62). Additionally, most award recipients were able to publish multiple articles on the topic for which they won their award (median publications two; IQR zero to four). Publication volume was greater in the years following the SIS award (median publications 17; IQR six to 46). Recipients tended to have multiple publications on the topic of infection (median publications four; IQR one to 11). There was no substantial difference in publication volume according to gender (male median publications 31; IQR 11–67 vs. female 19; IQR six to 43; p = 0.19).
There were substantially more publications by faculty compared with residents prior to receiving the scholarship. However, the number of publications after the scholarship award was not different between faculty and residents. This includes all publications and publications related to infection/inflammation. Yet, few recipients had any work published in the society's journal (median Surgical Infections publications zero; IQR zero to one).
Benefit and impact to the individual awardee and the SIS
To evaluate the potential benefit and impact to the individual and the SIS, we evaluated the rates of membership, activity as an officer in the society, presentation at the yearly meetings, and publications including those in the journal of SIS (Surgical Infections). Of the 93 awardees, 24 (25.8%) scholarship winners are active SIS members or Candidate members. Five scholarship winners have gone on to become officers. An evaluation of presentations given by prior awardees over the past 10 y demonstrated that 33 (35.5%) have given a podium presentation at SIS. A total of 36 (38.7%) awardees have given a poster or podium presentation over the past 10 y.
Table 2 shows a comparison between resident awardees and faculty awardees evaluating the potential benefit and impact to the individual and the society. Faculty scholarship winners were much more likely to present at SIS and be an active member of the society. They were also more likely to publish in Surgical Infections. Data is also shown on this table for the three awardees who received both awards.
IQR = interquartile range.
Benefit to the society
To evaluate the benefit and impact to the SIS, we evaluated the rates of meeting registration and donation practices of scholarship winners. Of the 93 awardees, 16 (17.2%) have donated to the foundation. The total contribution by awardees is $47,675 with a range of $0 to $15,500. A comparison of donation practices by scholarship type is shown in Table 3.
IQR = interquartile range; SIS = Surgical Infection Society.
An evaluation of meeting registration demonstrated that 24 (25.8%) awardees have attended any meeting in the last 3 y and only 14 (15.1%) have attended multiple meetings in the last 3 y. A comparison of registration practices by scholarship type is shown in Table 3.
Discussion
The SIS has donated substantial funding to promote surgical research which is core to its mission. In evaluation of the impact to the individual and the society, it is clear that there has been benefit to the individuals in terms of support to their publications and monetary awards. Other societies have also demonstrated positive value of awards as perceived by the individuals [5]. The benefit to the society seems less clear. Although the society is fulfilling its central mission, it is important to try and measure the success of its generosity and maximize its future success.
This study has identified benchmarks for future comparison and may allow the society some data from which to make goals or even changes in its fellowship awards. There appears to be a substantial opportunity for the society to improve its return on investment and subsequently be even more generous in the future. Key benchmarks were identified mainly on the areas of benefit to the society. Only 26% of awardees were active members and this was substantially lower for residents who received awards when compared with junior faculty members who received the awards. In an editorial about scientific societies in the 21st century, the authors describes the importance of membership [8]. The authors write, “Through our profession, we give voice to life that does not have a voice of its own. Society membership is a critical component of that voice and fulfills an otherwise empty niche. Society membership is an essential component of professional development. As such, membership is both a bargain and a responsibility.”
Although both faculty and residents' publications are robust after they have received the awards, specific publication into the journal Surgical Infections was much lower for residents than faculty. Our data demonstrates that 39% of awardees have been involved in a presentation over the past 10 y with residents, again, much less likely to present at the annual meeting. Registration at the annual meetings was also lower for residents when compared with faculty awardees. Registration for multiple meetings over the last 3 y was 17 times more likely, at 67%, for attendings when compared with residents. Lastly, only 17.2% of awardees have donated to the foundation between 1996 and 2012, with faculty being eight times more likely to donate than residents.
The group that had the largest benefit to themselves and the Society are the group of three that received awards as both residents and faculty. This group, albeit small, has had tremendous individual success and given tremendously to the society. This data combined with the greater participation of faculty awardees suggest that perhaps encouraging more fellow/junior attendings would have a larger return on investment.
Unfortunately, there are several limitations to this study. The first limitation is the absence of time needed to thoroughly evaluate all measurements available. For example, other societies have looked at the success of awards by measuring the awardees eventual success rate of receiving NIH funding [2]. This was not done for this study, but would be a useful measurement to track, if decided that it was important by the society. Likewise, individual success could be evaluated by an individual's rate of academic promotions. Some societies have implored survey methodology to query members around issues of scholarships [5,6,9]. This methodology was not utilized in this study. A key piece that was not evaluated was the impact to the mentor. Mentors in societies play a key role, and this has been articulated in other studies [10]. The rules of any scholarships awarded through the SIS is that they must identify a mentor. The SIS has always stressed the importance of mentorship and this was best characterized in the SIS presidential address by the Doctor Steve Lowry [11]. Further evaluation of the success of the SIS scholarships should evaluate the relation between the mentor and the society. Evaluation of publications may have given extra publications to awardees with common names. We did not have full data set on all domains that we evaluated, but rather samples based on availability, existing records, or degree of difficulty in accessing data. It would also be useful to evaluate the impact to the individual by comparing their productivity to an applicant who applied but did not receive the award. This is clearly an area of future study.
In conclusion, we have developed and determined some benchmarks for the SIS to measure future success against. It appears that there is benefit to the individual awardees; however, there remains potential to improve benefit to the society. The society may need to more critically evaluate its practice and measurements of success as it moves forward with its generosity to maximize its return on investment in promoting research.
Footnotes
Author Disclosure Statement
No competing financial interests exist.