Background: We investigated whether the supply of head and neck fellowship graduates matches head and neck cancer trends. Methods: Graduates between 1997 and 2017 from the American Head and Neck Society (AHNS) and United States Otolaryngology fellowship program webpages were identified. Trends in graduates were compared with head and neck cancer incidence obtained from the Center of Disease Control.

III.

4. Laryngoscope, 128:2039-2053, 2018.

Objective: To compare NIH funding in the field of Otolaryngology to other medical and surgical specialties between 2009 and 2019. Methods: Data was collected from the NIH RePORTER database on funding dollars received by each specialty from 2009 to 2019. Along with data on total active physicians per specialty using the Physician Specialty Data Book, comparisons were drawn between Otolaryngology and other medical and surgical specialties with regards to trends in total funding and NIH funding dollars per physician. The distributions of grant funding, within Otolaryngology from various NIH institutes among principal investigators, organizations, and subspecialties were further explored. Results: There were 3810 grants (1147 unique projects) for a total of $1 276 198 555 funded by the NIH to Otolaryngology departments from 2009 to 2019. Statistically insignificant funding increases ( P > .05) caused otolaryngology to fall from first to fourth in funding among studied specialties. The National Institute on Deafness and Other Communication Disorders funded 57% of all unique projects, and 57.2% of all unique NIH projects were otology related. Most projects were basic science related. The top 10 principal investigators obtained 22.3% of the total NIH funding for Otolaryngology. The top 3 organizations over the studied period comprised 26.55% of the total funding, generating a combined 729 grants. Among principal investigators, 63.0% had a PhD degree, 25.3% had an MD, and 9.6% had an MD/PhD. Conclusion and Relevance: NIH funding in Otolaryngology has remained stable and is highly concentrated among a small number of organizations, geographic regions, and principal investigators. Recent initiatives by academic communities have sought to address funding disparities by incorporating diversity and inclusion into clinician-scientist pipelines. We urge our colleagues to strive toward identification of the factors that contribute to successful acquisition of funding and implementation of a more conducive institutional infrastructure to produce research.

No abstract