Gender differences in grant and personnel award funding rates at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research based on research content area: A retrospective analysis

Background Although women at all career stages are more likely to leave academia than men, early-career women are a particularly high-risk group. Research supports that women are less likely than men to receive research funding; however, whether funding success rates vary based on research content is unknown. We addressed gender differences in funding success rates for applications directed to one or more of 13 institutes, representing research communities, over a 15-year period. Methods and findings We retrospectively reviewed 55,700 grant and 4,087 personnel award applications submitted to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. We analyzed application success rates according to gender and the primary institute selected by applicants, pooled gender differences in success rates using random effects models, and fitted Poisson regression models to assess the effects of gender, time, and institute. We noted variable success rates among grant applications directed to selected institutes and declining success rates over time. Women submitted 31.1% and 44.7% of grant and personnel award applications, respectively. In the pooled estimate, women had significantly lower grant success (risk ratio [RR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-0.94; p < 0.001; absolute difference 3.2%) compared with men, with substantial heterogeneity (I-2 = 58%). Compared with men, women who directed grants to the Institutes of Cancer Research (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78-0.96), Circulatory and Respiratory Health (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66-0.84), Health Services and Policy Research (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68-0.90), and Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.69-0.93) were significantly less likely to be funded, and those who directed grants to the Institute of Aboriginal People's Health (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.0-2.7) were more likely to be funded. Overall, women also had significantly lower personnel award success (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65-0.86; p < 0.001; absolute difference 6.6%). Regression modelling identified that the effect of gender on grant success rates differed by institute and not time. Study limitations include use of institutes as a surrogate identifier, variability in designation of primary institute, and lack of access to metrics reflecting applicants, coapplicants, peer reviewers, and the peer-review process. Conclusions Gender disparity existed overall in grant and personnel award success rates, especially for grants directed to selected research communities. Funding agencies should monitor for gender differences in grant success rates overall and by research content. Author summaryWhy was this study done? Research supports that woman applicants are less likely to receive research funding than men. Women at all career stages are more likely to leave academia than men, especially women who are postdoctoral trainees and early in their careers. We retrospectively reviewed grant and personnel award submissions based at the Canadian Institutes of Health Research based on research content area to assess for gender differences in funding success rates, which are important to identify whether gender disparity existed in funding. This information is important to address potential sources of bias in the review process. What did the researchers do and find? We retrospectively reviewed 55,700 grant and 4,087 personnel award applications submitted to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research over a 15-year period. We found that compared with men, women were significantly less likely to be awarded grants and New Investigator personnel awards. Additionally, we identified significant differences in the gradients of grant success in specific research content areas including Cancer, Circulatory and Respiratory Health, Health Services and Policy Research, and Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis favoring men scientists. Regression modelling identified that the effect of gender on grant success rates differed by research community and not time. What do these findings mean? These findings call for heightened awareness in applicants, peer reviewers, and funding agencies to the potential for bias to exist in the evaluation of grant and personnel award applications. Our findings highlight the need for funding agencies to monitor gender differences in grant success rates overall and by research content area and to explore possible explanations for gender disparity when identified. Additional research is urgently needed to explicate the reasons for gender differences in success rates and identify bias-enhancing conditions in the peer-review process.