Funding infectious disease research: a systematic analysis of UK research investments by funders 1997-2010.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Research investments are essential to address the burden of disease, however allocation of limited resources is poorly documented. We systematically reviewed the investments awarded by funding organisations to UK institutions and their global partners for infectious disease research.Methodology/principal findings
Public and philanthropic investments for the period 1997 to 2010 were included. We categorised studies by infectious disease, cross-cutting theme, and by research and development value chain, reflecting the type of science. We identified 6165 funded studies, with a total research investment of UK £2.6 billion. Public organisations provided £1.4 billion (54.0%) of investments compared with £1.1 billion (42.4%) by philanthropic organisations. Global health studies represented an investment of £928 million (35.7%). The Wellcome Trust was the leading investor with £688 million (26.5%), closely followed by the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) with £673 million (25.9%). Funding over time was volatile, ranging from ?£40 million to ?£160 million per year for philanthropic organisations and ?£30 million to ?£230 million for public funders.Conclusions/significance
Infectious disease research funding requires global coordination and strategic long-term vision. Our analysis demonstrates the diversity and inconsistent patterns in investment, with volatility in annual funding amounts and limited investment for product development and clinical trials.
SUBMITTER: Fitchett JR
PROVIDER: S-EPMC4146508 | biostudies-literature | 2014
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Funding infectious disease research: a systematic analysis of UK research investments by funders 1997-2010.
Fitchett Joseph R JR Head Michael G MG Cooke Mary K MK Wurie Fatima B FB Atun Rifat R
PloS one 20140827 8
<h4>Background</h4>Research investments are essential to address the burden of disease, however allocation of limited resources is poorly documented. We systematically reviewed the investments awarded by funding organisations to UK institutions and their global partners for infectious disease research.<h4>Methodology/principal findings</h4>Public and philanthropic investments for the period 1997 to 2010 were included. We categorised studies by infectious disease, cross-cutting theme, and by rese ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:OBJECTIVES:Respiratory infections are responsible for a large global burden of disease. We assessed the public and philanthropic investments awarded to UK institutions for respiratory infectious disease research to identify areas of underinvestment. We aimed to identify projects and categorise them by pathogen, disease and position along the research and development value chain. SETTING:The UK. PARTICIPANTS:Institutions that host and carry out infectious disease research. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:The total amount spent and number of studies with a focus on several different respiratory pathogens or diseases, and to correlate these against the global burden of disease; also the total amount spent and number of studies relating to the type of science, the predominant funder in each category and the mean and median award size. RESULTS:We identified 6165 infectious disease studies with a total investment of £2·6 billion. Respiratory research received £419 million (16.1%) across 1192 (19.3%) studies. The Wellcome Trust provided greatest investment (£135.2 million; 32.3%). Tuberculosis received £155 million (37.1%), influenza £80 million (19.1%) and pneumonia £27.8 million (6.6%). Despite high burden, there was relatively little investment in vaccine-preventable diseases including diphtheria (£0.1 million, 0.03%), measles (£5.0 million, 1.2%) and drug-resistant tuberculosis. There were 802 preclinical studies (67.3%) receiving £273 million (65.2%), while implementation research received £81 million (19.3%) across 274 studies (23%). There were comparatively few phase I-IV trials or product development studies. Global health research received £68.3 million (16.3%). Relative investment was strongly correlated with 2010 disease burden. CONCLUSIONS:The UK predominantly funds preclinical science. Tuberculosis is the most studied respiratory disease. The high global burden of pneumonia-related disease warrants greater investment than it has historically received. Other priority areas include antimicrobial resistance (particularly within tuberculosis), economics and proactive investments for emerging infectious threats.
| S-EPMC3975787 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesThere has not previously been a systematic comparison of awards for research funding in infectious diseases by sex. We investigated funding awards to UK institutions for all infectious disease research from 1997 to 2010, across disease categories and along the research and development continuum.DesignSystematic comparison.MethodsData were obtained from several sources for awards from the period 1997 to 2010 and each study assigned to-disease categories; type of science (preclinical, phases I-III trials, product development, implementation research); categories of funding organisation. Fold differences and statistical analysis were used to compare total investment, study numbers, mean grant and median grant between men and women.Results6052 studies were included in the final analysis, comprising 4357 grants (72%) awarded to men and 1695 grants (28%) awarded to women, totalling £2.274 billion. Of this, men received £1.786 billion (78.5%) and women £488 million (21.5%). The median value of award was greater for men (£179 389; IQR £59 146-£371 977) than women (£125 556; IQR £30 982-£261 834). Awards were greater for male principal investigators (PIs) across all infectious disease systems, excepting neurological infections and sexually transmitted infections. The proportion of total funding awarded to women ranged from 14.3% in 1998 to 26.8% in 2009 (mean 21.4%), and was lowest for preclinical research at 18.2% (£285.5 million of £1.573 billion) and highest for operational research at 30.9% (£151.4 million of £489.7 million).ConclusionsThere are consistent differences in funding received by men and women PIs: women have fewer funded studies and receive less funding in absolute and in relative terms; the median funding awarded to women is lower across most infectious disease areas, by funder, and type of science. These differences remain broadly unchanged over the 14-year study period.
| S-EPMC3865386 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundInfectious diseases account for a significant global burden of disease and substantial investment in research and development. This paper presents a systematic assessment of research investments awarded to UK institutions and global health metrics assessing disease burden.MethodsWe systematically sourced research funding data awarded from public and philanthropic organisations between 1997 and 2013. We screened awards for relevance to infection and categorised data by type of science, disease area and specific pathogen. Investments were compared with mortality, disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) and years lived with disability (YLD) across three time points.FindingsBetween 1997-2013, there were 7398 awards with a total investment of £3.7 billion. An increase in research funding across 2011-2013 was observed for most disease areas, with notable exceptions being sexually transmitted infections and sepsis research where funding decreased. Most funding remains for pre-clinical research (£2.2 billion, 59.4%). Relative to global mortality, DALYs and YLDs, acute hepatitis C, leishmaniasis and African trypanosomiasis received comparatively high levels of funding. Pneumonia, shigellosis, pertussis, cholera and syphilis were poorly funded across all health metrics. Tuberculosis (TB) consistently attracts relatively less funding than HIV and malaria.InterpretationMost infections have received increases in research investment, alongside decreases in global burden of disease in 2013. The UK demonstrates research strengths in some neglected tropical diseases such as African trypanosomiasis and leishmaniasis, but syphilis, cholera, shigellosis and pneumonia remain poorly funded relative to their global burden. Acute hepatitis C appears well funded but the figures do not adequately take into account projected future chronic burdens for this condition. These findings can help to inform global policymakers on resource allocation for research investment.
| S-EPMC4739409 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Fungal infections cause significant global morbidity and mortality. We have previously described the UK investments in global infectious disease research, and here our objective is to describe the investments awarded to UK institutions for mycology research and outline potential funding gaps in the UK portfolio.Systematic analysis.UK institutions carrying out infectious disease research.Primary outcome is the amount of funding and number of studies related to mycology research. Secondary outcomes are describing the investments made to specific fungal pathogens and diseases, and also the type of science along the R&D value chain.We systematically searched databases and websites for information on research studies from public and philanthropic funding institutions awarded between 1997 and 2010, and highlighted the mycology-related projects.Of 6165 funded studies, we identified 171 studies related to mycology (total investment £48.4 million, 1.9% of all infection research, with mean annual funding £3.5 million). Studies related to global health represented 5.1% of this funding (£2.4 million, compared with 35.6% of all infectious diseases). Leading funders were the Biotechnology and Biological Sciences Research Council (£14.8 million, 30.5%) and Wellcome Trust (£12.0 million, 24.7%). Preclinical studies received £42.2 million (87.3%), with clinical trials, intervention studies and implementation research in total receiving £6.2 million (12.7%). By institution, University of Aberdeen received most funding (£16.9 million, 35%). Studies investigating antifungal resistance received £1.5 million (3.2%).There is little translation of preclinical research into clinical trials or implementation research in spite of substantial disease burden globally, and there are few UK institutions that carry out significant quantities of mycology research of any type. In the context of global health and the burden of disease in low-income countries, more investment is required for mycology research.
| S-EPMC3902376 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe burden of pneumonia continues to be substantial, particularly among the poorest in global society. We describe here the trends for UK pneumonia R&D investment and published outputs, and correlate with 2013 global mortality.MethodsData related to awards to UK institutions for pneumonia research from 1997 to 2013 were systematically sourced and categorised by disease area and type of science. Investment was compared to mortality figures in 2010 and 2013 for pneumonia, tuberculosis and influenza. Investment was also compared to publication data.ResultsOf all infectious disease research between 2011 and 2013 (£917.0 million), £28.8 million (3.1%) was for pneumonia. This was an absolute and proportionate increase from previous time periods. Translational pneumonia research (33.3%) received increased funding compared with 1997-2010 where funding was almost entirely preclinical (87.5%, here 30.9%), but high-burden areas such as paediatrics, elderly care and antimicrobial resistance received little investment. Annual investment remains volatile; publication temporal trends show a consistent increase. When comparing investment to global burden with a novel 'investment by mortality observed' metric, tuberculosis (£48.36) and influenza (£484.21) receive relatively more funding than pneumonia (£43.08), despite investment for pneumonia greatly increasing in 2013 compared to 2010 (£7.39). Limitations include a lack of private sector data and the need for careful interpretation of the comparisons with burden, plus categorisation is subjective.ConclusionsThere has been a welcome increase for pneumonia funding awarded to UK institutions in 2011-2013 compared with 1997-2010, along with increases for more translational research. Published outputs relating to pneumonia rose steadily from 1997 to 2013. Investment relative to mortality for pneumonia has increased, but it remains low compared to other respiratory infections and clear inequities remain. Analyses that measure investments in pneumonia can provide an insight into funding trends and research gaps.Research in contextPneumonia continues to be a high-burden illness around the globe. This paper shows that although research funding is increasing in the UK (between 1997 and 2013), it remains poorly funded compared to other important respiratory infectious diseases such as tuberculosis and influenza. Publications about pneumonia have been steadily increasing over time, indicating continuing academic and clinical interest in the topic. Though global mortality of pneumonia is declining, it should still be an area of high priority for funders, policymakers and researchers.
| S-EPMC4588381 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundThe latest outbreak of Ebola in West Africa overwhelmed the affected countries, with the impact on health extending far beyond Ebola-related deaths that have exceeded 11 000. The need to promptly mobilise resources to control emerging infections is widely recognized. Yet, data on research funding for emerging infections remains inadequately documented.MethodsWe defined research investment as all funding flows for Ebola and/or Marburg virus from 1997 to April 2015 whose primary purpose was to advance knowledge and new technologies to prevent or cure disease. We sourced data directly from funding organizations and estimated the investment in 2015 US dollars (US$).ResultsFunding for Ebola and Marburg virus research in 1997 to 2015 amounted to US$ 1.035 billion, including US$ 435.4 million (42.0%) awarded in 2014 and 2015. Public sources of funding invested US$ 758.8 million (73.1%), philanthropic sources US$ 65.1 million (6.3%), and joint public/private/philanthropic ventures accounted for US$ 213.8 million (20.6%). Prior to the Ebola outbreak in 2014, pre-clinical research dominated research with US$ 443.6 million (73.9%) investment. After the outbreak, however, investment for new product development increased 942.7-fold and that for clinical trials rose 23.5-fold. Investment in new tools to control Ebola and Marburg virus amounted to US$ 399.1 million, with 61.3% awarded for vaccine research, 29.2% for novel therapeutics research such as antivirals and convalescent blood products, and 9.5% for diagnostics research. Research funding and bibliometric output were moderately associated (Spearman's ρ = 0.5232, P = 0.0259), however number of Ebola cases in previous outbreaks and research funding (ρ = 0.1706, P = 0.4985) and Ebola cases in previous outbreaks and research output (ρ = 0.3020, P = 0.0616) were poorly correlated.ConclusionSignificant public and philanthropic funds have been invested in Ebola and Marburg virus research in 2014 and 2015, following the outbreak in West Africa. Long term, strategic vision and leadership are needed to invest in infections with pandemic potential early, including innovative financing measures and open access investment data to promote the development of new therapies and technologies.
| S-EPMC5112007 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Viral hepatitis is responsible for great health, social and economic burden both globally and in the UK. This study aimed to assess the research funding awarded to UK institutions for viral hepatitis research and the relationship of funded research to clinical and public health burden of viral hepatitis. Databases and websites were systematically searched for information on infectious disease research studies funded for the period 1997-2010. Studies specifically related to viral hepatitis research were identified and categorized in terms of funding by pathogen, disease and by a research and development value chain describing the type of science. The overall data set included 6165 studies (total investment £2.6 billion) of which £76.9 million (3.0%) was directed towards viral hepatitis across 323 studies (5.2%). By pathogen, there were four studies specifically investigating hepatitis A (£3.8 million), 69 studies for hepatitis B (21.4%) with total investment of £14.7 million (19.1%) and 236 (73.1%) hepatitis C studies (£62.7 million, 81.5%). There were 4 studies investigating hepatitis G, and none specifying hepatitis D or E. By associated area, viral hepatitis and therapeutics research received £17.0 million, vaccinology £3.1 million and diagnostics £2.9 million. Preclinical research received £50.3 million (65.4%) across 173 studies, whilst implementation and operational research received £19.4 million (25.3%) across 128 studies. The UK is engaged in much hepatology research, but there are areas where the burden is great and may require greater focus, such as hepatitis E, development of a vaccine for hepatitis C, and further research into hepatitis-associated cancers. Private sector data, and funding information from other countries, would also be useful in priority setting.
| S-EPMC4344814 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundEach year, billions of US$ are spent globally on infectious disease research and development. However, there is little systematic tracking of global research and development. We present research on investments into infectious diseases research from funders in the G20 countries across an 18-year time period spanning 2000-17, comparing amounts invested for different conditions and considering the global burden of disease to identify potential areas of relative underfunding.MethodsThe study examined research awards made between 2000 and 2017 for infectious disease research from G20-based public and philanthropic funders. We searched research databases using a range of keywords, and open access data were extracted from funder websites. Awards were categorised by type of science, specialty, and disease or pathogen. Data collected included study title, abstract, award amount, funder, and year. We used descriptive statistics and Spearman's correlation coefficient to investigate the association between research investment and disease burden, using Global Burden of Disease 2017 study data.FindingsThe final 2000-17 dataset included 94 074 awards for infectious disease research, with a sum investment of $104·9 billion (annual range 4·1 billion to 8·4 billion) and a median award size of $257 176 (IQR 62 562-770 661). Pre-clinical research received $61·1 billion (58·2%) across 70 337 (74·8%) awards and public health research received $29·5 billion (28·1%) from 19 197 (20·4%) awards. HIV/AIDS received $42·1 billion (40·1%), tuberculosis received $7·0 billion (6·7%), malaria received $5·6 billion (5·3%), and pneumonia received $3·5 billion (3·3%). Funding for Ebola virus ($1·2 billion), Zika virus ($0·3 billion), influenza ($4·4 billion), and coronavirus ($0·5 billion) was typically highest soon after a high-profile outbreak. There was a general increase in year-on-year investment in infectious disease research between 2000 and 2006, with a decline between 2007 and 2017. Funders based in the USA provided $81·6 billion (77·8%). Based on funding per 2017 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), HIV/AIDS received the greatest relative investment ($772 per DALY), compared with tuberculosis ($156 per DALY), malaria ($125 per DALY), and pneumonia ($33 per DALY). Syphilis and scabies received the least relative investment (both $9 per DALY). We observed weak positive correlation (r=0·30) between investment and 2017 disease burden.InterpretationHIV research received the highest amount of investment relative to DALY burden. Scabies and syphilis received the lowest relative funding. Investments for high-threat pathogens (eg, Ebola virus and coronavirus) were often reactive and followed outbreaks. We found little evidence that funding is proactively guided by global burden or pandemic risk. Our findings show how research investments are allocated and how this relates to disease burden and diseases with pandemic potential.FundingBill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
| S-EPMC7505652 | biostudies-literature
Project description:As pressures to maximize research funding grow, biomedical research funders are increasingly tasked with demonstrating the long-term and real-world impacts of their funded research investments. Over the past three decades, research impact assessments (RIA) have emerged as an important tool for analysing the impacts of research by incorporating logic models, frameworks and indicators to track measures of knowledge production, capacity-building, development of research products, adoption of research into clinical guidelines and policies, and the realization of health, economic and social benefits. While there are currently several models for RIA within the literature, less attention has been paid to how funders can practically select and implement a RIA model to demonstrate the impacts of their own research portfolios. In this paper, a literature review was performed to understand (1) which research funders have performed RIAs of their research portfolios to date; (2) how funders have designed their assessments, including the models and tools they have used; (3) what challenges to and facilitators of success have funders found when adopting the RIA model to their own portfolio; and (4) who participates in the assessments. Forty-four papers from both published and grey literature were found to meet the review criteria and were examined in detail. There is a growing culture of RIA among funders, and included papers spanned a diverse set of funders from 10 countries or regions. Over half of funders (59.1%) used a framework to conduct their assessment, and a variety of methods for collecting impact data were reported. Issues of methodological rigour were observed across studies in the review, and this was related to numerous challenges funders faced in designing timely RIAs with quality impact data. Over a third of articles (36.4%) included input from stakeholders, yet only one article reported surveying patients and members of the public as part of the assessment. To advance RIA among funders, we offer several recommendations for increasing the methodological rigour of RIAs and suggestions for future research, and call for a careful reflection of the voices needed in an impact assessment to ensure that RIAs are having a meaningful impact on patients and the public.
| S-EPMC9361261 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVES:To categorically describe cancer research funding in the UK by gender of primary investigator (PIs). DESIGN:Systematic analysis of all open-access data. METHODS:Data about public and philanthropic cancer research funding awarded to UK institutions between 2000 and 2013 were obtained from several sources. Fold differences were used to compare total investment, award number, mean and median award value between male and female PIs. Mann-Whitney U tests were performed to determine statistically significant associations between PI gender and median grant value. RESULTS:Of the studies included in our analysis, 2890 (69%) grants with a total value of £1.82?billion (78%) were awarded to male PIs compared with 1296 (31%) grants with a total value of £512?million (22%) awarded to female PIs. Male PIs received 1.3 times the median award value of their female counterparts (P<0.001). These apparent absolute and relative differences largely persisted regardless of subanalyses. CONCLUSIONS:We demonstrate substantial differences in cancer research investment awarded by gender. Female PIs clearly and consistently receive less funding than their male counterparts in terms of total investment, the number of funded awards, mean funding awarded and median funding awarded.
| S-EPMC5931297 | biostudies-literature