Volume 61, Issue 3 pp. 418-423
Radiation Oncology—Original Article

Radiation Oncology research grants awarded by the Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists: Value for money?

Daniel E Roos

Corresponding Author

Daniel E Roos

Department of Radiation Oncology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

School of Medicine, University of Adelaide, Adelaide, South Australia, Australia

Correspondence

Professor Daniel E Roos, Department of Radiation Oncology, Royal Adelaide Hospital, North Terrace, Adelaide, SA 5000, Australia.

Email: [email protected]

Search for more papers by this author
Joshua K Kartika

Joshua K Kartika

Flinders Medical Centre, Bedford Park, South Australia, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
Marcus Q Hu

Marcus Q Hu

Princess Alexandra Hospital, Woolloongabba, Queensland, Australia

Search for more papers by this author
First published: 16 December 2016
Citations: 3
DE Roos BSc(Hons), DipEd, MBBS, MD, FRANZCR; JK Kartika MBBS; MQ Hu BSc, MBBS.
Conflict of interest: None.

Abstract

Introduction

The Royal Australian and New Zealand College of Radiologists (RANZCR) and other medical colleges have provided research grants from their budgets for many years. This survey-based project aimed to determine whether the RANZCR Faculty of Radiation Oncology (FRO) is realizing value for money from its seed funding, and to compare this with grant activities of the other colleges.

Methods

Eligible FRO grant recipients between 1999 and 2014 were surveyed regarding bibliometric data, subjective outcomes and factors considered important in completing their research projects. The other colleges were also approached via email and phone interviews.

Results

A records search identified 26 eligible individuals who received 42 grants for 41 projects. The survey response rate was 100%, identifying 33 secondary grants, 65 conference presentations, 10 prizes and 69 publications associated with the FRO grants and consequential research. At least seven higher degrees also resulted. The funding process was very positively perceived by grant recipients, and the two factors identified as most important in project completion were local infrastructure and RANZCR funding. In 2015, FRO allocated AUD$150K for grants compared with $10K–$2.6M from 10 of the other 15 Australasian Medical Colleges. In general, appraisal of funding outcomes relative to expenditure has been only low level until recently.

Conclusions

This project has identified significant research output and subjective benefit from relatively modest FRO seed grants, implying a favourable cost-benefit ratio. Such outcomes monitoring needs to be more widely pursued within Australasian medical colleges.

The full text of this article hosted at iucr.org is unavailable due to technical difficulties.