19th Apr 2018

First ever analysis of NIAA research grant activity published


New data has been published today in the jounal Anaesthesia, comprising the first ever systematic analysis of UK anaesthetic research grant activity by the National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia (NIAA). The NIAA is celebrating its 10th anniversary in 2018.

The paper highlights that whilst the organisation facilitated the award of £4.2 million of anaesthesia research grant funding between 2008 and 2015, UK anaesthesia receives significantly less research funding than other areas of study.

Dr Andrew Klein, senior author of the research, said: "These findings from the first systematic analysis of anaesthesia research grant activity in the UK are crucial to understanding how funding, mostly from charitable sources, is granted. The results show that grants are awarded independent of who is applying and therefore suggest limited bias. This benchmarking process will provide a platform for funders to better understand what research is more likely to bring results in the field of science and, most importantly, to patients. What is clear is that funding for research into anaesthesia, perioperative care, pain and critical care is much lower than for other specialties, despite that fact that so many patients are looked after by anaesthetists each year."


The study analysed 495 grant applications and NIAA awards over an eight-year period. It explored what the grant funding was designed to research, whether the funding led to publication, and the research impact factor. Authors found that UK academic anaesthesia has performed well given the relatively small amount of funding it receives, with an overall cost per publication of £14,970, compared to an average cost of £55,000 per publication across all medical specialties. This represents superior value as the authors reflect that anaesthesia research accounts for less than 2% of National Institute for Health Research studies. According to The Association of Medical Royal Colleges, mental and public health and neurological disorders comprise 15% of studies, while cancer, cardiovascular and neurological research account for 70% of charity-funded research.


The majority of grant applicants for NIAA funding were from England 80.4% (398), with 12.3% from Scotland (61), 4.8% from Wales (24), 1.4% from Ireland (7), 0.4% from Northern Ireland (2), and 0.2% (1) from Netherlands, New Zealand and USA. Most funding per national population went to Scotland (£13 per thousand population), and the least to Wales (£1 per thousand population). London accounted for both the largest number of applicants and the largest number of grants awarded. A total of 123 (82%) grants were awarded to researchers in England, with London receiving 48 (32%) of these. However, this was in proportion to the number of grant applications received by country or city of application, such that there was no significant difference in overall success rates.

The study found that NIAA grants seemed to be awarded equally, regardless of applicant gender, location, or subject of study. While more males than females submitted applications to the NIAA over the study period (76% vs 24%), gender had no effect on the likelihood of success (31.1% vs. 27.7%, respectively); this reflects the gender split within the anaesthetic workforce, where 32% of consultants are female. Overall, the only prediction of grants being awarded was actually applying, with the most grants awarded to those who applied the most frequently.


The NIAA has awarded approximately £7 million since its establishment in 2008 to support, improve and deliver anaesthesia research. Most awards are to research project grants, although the NIAA has awarded 23 undergraduate, six doctoral and seven senior academic grants worth a total of £2.3 million.

The study was published in the journal Anaesthesia and can be accessed here.

Please note

This research was conducted externally to the NIAA, which provided background information and statistics to the researchers for independent analysis. The final paper does not necessarily reflect the views or official positions of all NIAA constituent founding/funding partners.