Dataset Information

National support to public health research: a survey of European ministries.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Within SPHERE (Strengthening Public Health Research in Europe), a collaborative study funded by the European Commission, we have assessed the support for public health research at ministry level in European countries.

Methods

We surveyed the health and science ministries in 25 EU countries and 3 EEA countries, using a broad definition of public-health research at population level. We made over 600 phone calls and emails to identify respondents and to gain answers. We gained formal replies from 42 out of 56 ministries (73% response) in 25 countries. There were 22 completed questionnaires (from 25 ministries), 6 short answers and 11 contacts declaring that their ministries were not responsible for public health research, while in 14 ministries (both ministries in three countries) no suitable ministry contact could be found.

Results

In most European countries, ministries of health, or their devolved agencies, were regarded as the leading organizations. Most ministries were able to specify thematic areas for public-health research (from three to thirty), and others ministries referred to policy documents, health plans or public-health plans to define research priorities. Ministries and their agencies led on decisions for financial support of public-health research, with less involvement of other external organisations compared with the process of identifying priorities. However, the actual funds available for public health were not easily identifiable. Most ministries relied on general academic means for dissemination of results of public-health research, while ministries get information on the use of public-health research usually through informal means. Ministries made suggestions for strengthening public-health research through initiatives of their own countries and of the European Union: as well as more resources, improving coordination was most frequently suggested.

Conclusion

There is no common approach to support for public-health research across Europe, and significant gaps in organisation and funding. Health ministries and national agencies value exchange between researchers and policy-makers, civil society organizations, and academic and public authorities, and the application of public-health research results. There would be benefits from better processes of priority setting and improved coordination for research, at regional, national and European levels.

SUBMITTER: Conceicao C

PROVIDER: S-EPMC2713230 | biostudies-literature | 2009 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

National support to public health research: a survey of European ministries.

Conceição Cláudia C Leandro Alexandra A McCarthy Mark M

BMC public health 20090625

<h4>Background</h4>Within SPHERE (Strengthening Public Health Research in Europe), a collaborative study funded by the European Commission, we have assessed the support for public health research at ministry level in European countries.<h4>Methods</h4>We surveyed the health and science ministries in 25 EU countries and 3 EEA countries, using a broad definition of public-health research at population level. We made over 600 phone calls and emails to identify respondents and to gain answers. We ga ...[more]

PMID: 19555492

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInvestigator-initiated clinical studies (IITs) are crucial to generate reliable evidence that answers questions of day-to-day clinical practice. Many challenges make IITs a complex endeavour, for example, IITs often need to be multinational in order to recruit a sufficient number of patients. Recent studies highlighted that well-trained study personnel are a major factor to conduct such complex IITs successfully. As of today, however, no overview of the European training activities, requirements and career options for clinical study personnel exists.MethodsTo fill this knowledge gap, a survey was performed in all 11 member and observer countries of the European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network (ECRIN), using a standardised questionnaire. Three rounds of data collection were performed to maximize completeness and comparability of the received answers. The survey aimed to describe the landscape of academic training opportunities, to facilitate the exchange of expertise and experience among countries and to identify new fields of action.ResultsThe survey found that training for Good Clinical Practice (GCP) and investigator training is offered in all but one country. A specific training for study nurses or study coordinators is also either provided or planned in ten out of eleven countries. A majority of countries train in monitoring and clinical pharmacovigilance and offer specific training for principal investigators but only few countries also train operators of clinical research organisations (CRO) or provide training for methodology and quality management systems (QMS). Minimal requirements for study-specific functions cover GCP in ten countries. Only three countries issued no requirements or recommendations regarding the continuous training of study personnel. Yet, only four countries developed a national strategy for training in clinical research and the career options for clinical researchers are still limited in the majority of countries.ConclusionsThere is a substantial and impressive investment in training and education of clinical research in the individual ECRIN countries. But so far, a systematic approach for (top-down) strategic and overarching considerations and cross-network exchange is missing. Exchange of available curricula and sets of core competencies between countries could be a starting point for improving the situation.

Project description:BackgroundDigital health research repositories propose sharing longitudinal streams of health records and personal sensing data between multiple projects and researchers. Motivated by the prospect of personalizing patient care (precision medicine), these initiatives demand broad public acceptance and large numbers of data contributors, both of which are challenging.ObjectiveThis study investigates public attitudes toward possibly contributing to digital health research repositories to identify factors for their acceptance and to inform future developments.MethodsA cross-sectional online survey was conducted from March 2020 to December 2020. Because of the funded project scope and a multicenter collaboration, study recruitment targeted young adults in Denmark and Brazil, allowing an analysis of the differences between 2 very contrasting national contexts. Through closed-ended questions, the survey examined participants' willingness to share different data types, data access preferences, reasons for concern, and motivations to contribute. The survey also collected information about participants' demographics, level of interest in health topics, previous participation in health research, awareness of examples of existing research data repositories, and current attitudes about digital health research repositories. Data analysis consisted of descriptive frequency measures and statistical inferences (bivariate associations and logistic regressions).ResultsThe sample comprises 1017 respondents living in Brazil (1017/1600, 63.56%) and 583 in Denmark (583/1600, 36.44%). The demographics do not differ substantially between participants of these countries. The majority is aged between 18 and 27 years (933/1600, 58.31%), is highly educated (992/1600, 62.00%), uses smartphones (1562/1600, 97.63%), and is in good health (1407/1600, 87.94%). The analysis shows a vast majority were very motivated by helping future patients (1366/1600, 85.38%) and researchers (1253/1600, 78.31%), yet very concerned about unethical projects (1219/1600, 76.19%), profit making without consent (1096/1600, 68.50%), and cyberattacks (1055/1600, 65.94%). Participants' willingness to share data is lower when sharing personal sensing data, such as the content of calls and texts (1206/1600, 75.38%), in contrast to more traditional health research information. Only 13.44% (215/1600) find it desirable to grant data access to private companies, and most would like to stay informed about which projects use their data (1334/1600, 83.38%) and control future data access (1181/1600, 73.81%). Findings indicate that favorable attitudes toward digital health research repositories are related to a personal interest in health topics (odds ratio [OR] 1.49, 95% CI 1.10-2.02; P=.01), previous participation in health research studies (OR 1.70, 95% CI 1.24-2.35; P=.001), and awareness of examples of research repositories (OR 2.78, 95% CI 1.83-4.38; P<.001).ConclusionsThis study reveals essential factors for acceptance and willingness to share personal data with digital health research repositories. Implications include the importance of being more transparent about the goals and beneficiaries of research projects using and re-using data from repositories, providing participants with greater autonomy for choosing who gets access to which parts of their data, and raising public awareness of the benefits of data sharing for research. In addition, future developments should engage with and reduce risks for those unwilling to participate.

Project description:BACKGROUND:The mechanisms and pathways to impacts from public health research in the UK have not been widely studied. Through the lens of one funder (NIHR), our aims are to map the diversity of public health research, in terms of funding mechanisms, disciplinary contributions, and public health impacts, identify examples of impacts, and pathways to impact that existing reporting mechanisms may not otherwise have captured, and provide illustrations of how public health researchers perceive the generation of non-academic impact from their work. METHODS:A total of 1386 projects were identified as 'public health research' by the NIHR and listed in the NIHR Public Health Overview database (2000-2016). From these, a subset of 857 projects were matched as potentially having begun reporting impacts via an external data-gathering platform (Researchfish). Data on the 857 projects were analyzed quantitatively, and nine projects were selected to investigate further through semi-structured interviews with principal investigators. Two workshops took place to validate emerging and final findings and facilitate analysis. RESULTS:In addition to the NIHR School for Public Health Research and the NIHR Public Health Research Programme, 89% of projects contained in the NIHR Public Health Overview portfolio as 'public health research' are funded via other NIHR research programmes, suggesting significant diversity in disciplines contributing to public health research and outcomes. The pathways to impact observed in our in-depth case studies include contributing to debates on what constitutes appropriate evidence for national policy change, acknowledging local 'unintended' impacts, building trusted relationships with stakeholders across health and non-health sectors and actors, collaborating with local authorities, and using non-academic dissemination channels. CONCLUSIONS:Public health as a discipline contributes substantially to impact beyond academia. To support the diversity of these impacts, we need to recognise localized smaller-scale impacts, and the difference in types of evidence required for community and local authority-based impacts. This will also require building capacity and resources to enable impact to take place from public health research. Finally, support is required for engagement with local authorities and working with non-health sectors that contribute to health outcomes.

Project description:OBJECTIVE:The aim of this study was to determine the burden and risk factors of prediabetes and diabetes in the general adult population of Luxembourg. DESIGN:Cross-sectional survey between 2013 and 2015. SETTING:Data were collected as part of the European Health Examination Survey in Luxembourg (EHES-LUX). PARTICIPANTS:1451 individuals were recruited in a random sample of the 25-64-year-old population of Luxembourg. OUTCOMES:Diabetes was defined by a glycaemic biomarker (fasting plasma glucose (FPG) ?7.0?mmol/L), self-reported medication and medical diagnosis; prediabetes by a glycaemic biomarker (FPG 5.6-6.9?mmol/L), no self-reported medication and no medical diagnosis. Undiagnosed diabetes was defined only from the glycaemic biomarker; the difference between total and undiagnosed diabetes was defined as diagnosed diabetes. Odds of diabetes and prediabetes as well as associated risk factors were estimated. RESULTS:The weighted prevalence of prediabetes and diabetes was 25.6% and 6.5%, respectively. Nearly 4.8% (men: 5.8%; women: 3.8%) were diagnosed diabetes and 1.7% (men: 2.6%; women: 0.7%) were undiagnosed diabetes. The multivariable-adjusted OR (MVOR) for diabetes risk were: age 1.05 (95% CI 1.01 to 1.09), family history of diabetes 3.24 (1.95-5.38), abdominal obesity 2.63 (1.53-4.52), hypertension 3.18 (1.76-5.72), one-unit increase of triglycerides 1.16 (1.10-1.22) and total cholesterol 0.74 (0.64-0.86). The MVOR for prediabetes risk were: age 1.04 (95% CI 1.02 to 1.06), male sex 1.84 (1.30-2.60), moderate alcohol consumption 1.38 (1.01-1.89), family history of diabetes 1.52 (1.13-2.05), abdominal obesity 1.44 (1.06-1.97), second-generation immigrants 0.61 (0.39-0.95) and a one-unit increase of serum high-density lipoprotein cholesterol 0.70 (0.54-0.90). CONCLUSIONS:In Luxembourg, an unexpectedly high number of adults may be affected by prediabetes and diabetes. Therefore, these conditions should be addressed as a public health priority for the country, requiring measures for enhanced detection and surveillance, which are currently lacking, especially in primary care settings.

Project description:BackgroundOver the past two decades, genomics has evolved as a scientific research discipline. Genomics research was fueled initially by government and nonprofit funding sources, later augmented by private research and development (R&D) funding. Citizens and taxpayers of many countries have funded much of the research, and have expectations about access to the resulting information and knowledge. While access to knowledge gained from all publicly funded research is desired, access is especially important for fields that have broad social impact and stimulate public dialogue. Genomics is one such field, where public concerns are raised for reasons such as health care and insurance implications, as well as personal and ancestral identification. Thus, genomics has grown rapidly as a field, and attracts considerable interest.ResultsOne way to study the growth of a field of research is to examine its funding. This study focuses on public funding of genomics research, identifying and collecting data from major government and nonprofit organizations around the world, and updating previous estimates of world genomics research funding, including information about geographical origins. We initially identified 89 publicly funded organizations; we requested information about each organization's funding of genomics research. Of these organizations, 48 responded and 34 reported genomics research expenditures (of those that responded but did not supply information, some did not fund such research, others could not quantify it). The figures reported here include all the largest funders and we estimate that we have accounted for most of the genomics research funding from government and nonprofit sources.ConclusionAggregate spending on genomics research from 34 funding sources averaged around $2.9 billion in 2003-2006. The United States spent more than any other country on genomics research, corresponding to 35% of the overall worldwide public funding (compared to 49% US share of public health research funding for all purposes). When adjusted to genomics funding intensity, however, the United States dropped below Ireland, the United Kingdom, and Canada, as measured both by genomics research expenditure per capita and per Gross Domestic Product.

Dataset Information

National support to public health research: a survey of European ministries.

Background

Methods

Results

Conclusion

Publications

National support to public health research: a survey of European ministries.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets