Aesthetic Surgery Research Funding: Where Does It Come From and to Whom Does It Go?

Background: Recent data show that aesthetic surgery research is lagging compared with reconstructive surgery: research funding and institutional disparities within aesthetic surgery are potential factors in this trend.

Objectives: The authors sought to determine if disparities exist in aesthetic surgery research based on funding sources or practice settings.

Methods: The authors reviewed Aesthetic Surgery Journal articles from 2009 to 2019. Chi-square, t test, bivariate, and multivariate regression analyses were employed to evaluate research trends.

Results: A total of 2262 publications were identified, with 318 funded articles meeting inclusion criteria. The majority of studies (294, 92%) received external funding, with 281 (88%) being supported solely by external funds. Externally funded studies were financed by private industry (194, 66%), foundations/societies (53, 18%), government grants (23, 8%), or a combination of agencies (24, 8%). The majority of funded studies were at academic institutions (266, 84%), followed by private practice (46, 14%) and private industry (6, 2%). Analysis of annual publications revealed a rising percentage of academic-based research, which correlated with decreasing research from private practice (r = -0.95, r2 = 0.89, P < 0.001). Compared with academic institutions, private practice relied more heavily on industry funding (55% vs 87%, respectively, P = 0.001), exhibiting lower rates of foundational/societal (20% vs 2%), governmental (9% vs 0%), combined (8% vs 7%), and internal department funding (8% vs 4%). Article citations and level of evidence were unaffected by funding source, agency, or practice setting.

Conclusions: Lack of diversity in research funding among private practice surgeons may explain the reported discrepancies that currently exist between aesthetic and reconstructive surgery research.