Dataset Information

HIV research productivity and structural factors associated with HIV research output in European Union countries: a bibliometric analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

To assess HIV/AIDS research productivity in the 27 countries of the European Union (EU), and the structural level factors associated with levels of HIV/AIDS research productivity.

Methods

A bibliometric analysis was conducted with systematic search methods used to locate HIV/AIDS research publications (period of 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2011; search databases: MEDLINE (Ovid, PubMed), EMBASE, ISI-Thomson Web of Science; no language restrictions). The publication rate (number of HIV/AIDS research publications per million population in 10?years) and the rate of articles published in HIV/AIDS journals and selected journals with moderate to very high (IF ?3) 5-year impact factors were used as markers for HIV research productivity. A negative binomial regression model was fitted to assess the impact of structural level factors (sociodemographic, health, HIV prevalence and research/development indicators) associated with the variation in HIV research productivity.

Results

The total numbers of HIV/AIDS research publications in 2002-2011 by country ranged from 7 to 9128 (median 319). The median publication rate (per million population in 10?years) was 45 (range 5-150) for all publications. Across all countries, 16% of the HIV/AIDS research was published in HIV/AIDS journals and 7% in selected journals with IF ?3. Indicators describing economic (gross domestic product), demographic (size of the population) and epidemiological (HIV prevalence) conditions as well as overall scientific activity (total research output) in a country were positively associated with HIV research productivity.

Conclusions

HIV research productivity varies noticeably across EU countries, and this variation is associated with recognisable structural factors.

SUBMITTER: Uuskula A

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4322208 | biostudies-literature | 2015 Feb

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

HIV research productivity and structural factors associated with HIV research output in European Union countries: a bibliometric analysis.

Uusküla A A Toompere K K Laisaar K T KT Rosenthal M M Pürjer M L ML Knellwolf A A Läärä E E Des Jarlais D C DC

BMJ open 20150203 2

<h4>Objectives</h4>To assess HIV/AIDS research productivity in the 27 countries of the European Union (EU), and the structural level factors associated with levels of HIV/AIDS research productivity.<h4>Methods</h4>A bibliometric analysis was conducted with systematic search methods used to locate HIV/AIDS research publications (period of 1 January 2002 to 31 December 2011; search databases: MEDLINE (Ovid, PubMed), EMBASE, ISI-Thomson Web of Science; no language restrictions). The publication rat ...[more]

PMID: 25649212

Similar Datasets

Project description:ObjectivesLow-income and lower middle-income countries (LLMICs) bear a disproportionate burden of non-communicable diseases (NCDs). WHO has repeatedly called for more research on poverty and NCDs in these settings, but the current situation remains unquantified. We aimed to assess research output on poverty and NCD risk factors from these countries in relation to upper middle-income and high-income countries.DesignBibliometric analysis of primary research published between 1 January 1990 and 4 May 2017. We searched 13 databases, combining terms for poverty and NCD behavioural risk factors (tobacco, alcohol, diet and physical activity). Independent dual review was used to screen titles, abstracts and full papers. Two-tailed t-testing and multiple linear regression analyses were used to compare differences in means.Outcomes(1) Proportion of lead authors affiliated with institutions based in high and upper middle-income countries vs LLMICs. (2) Mean number of citations for publications from each region. (3) Mean journal impact factor for studies from each region.ResultsNinety-one (67%) of the 136 included studies were led by scientists affiliated with LLMIC-based institutions. These authors represented 17/83 LLMICs (20%), and their studies garnered 4.8 fewer citations per paper than studies led by high-income and upper middle-income-affiliated authors; however, this finding was non-significant (P=0.67). Papers led by authors based in high-income and upper middle-income countries were published in journals with a mean impact factor 3.1 points higher than those from LLMICs (4.9 vs 1.7) adjusting for year of publication and number of citations (P<0.001).ConclusionsMost poverty and NCD risk factor research is led by authors from a small number of LLMICs. These studies are being published in relatively low-impact journals, and the vast majority of LLMICs are not producing any research in this area that is vital to their social and economic development. The paucity of domestic evidence must be addressed to inform global policy.

Project description:BackgroundAfrica has a high double burden of infectious and non-communicable diseases underscoring the critical need for robust scientific research. However, it is also associated with low scientific research productivity. Mozambique, which gained independence in 1975, serves as a poignant example. However, there remains a notable scarcity of evidence evaluating the country's trajectory in scientific and academic development. This study aims to evaluate 43 years of health-related scientific knowledge production through bibliometric analysis, focusing on key indicators. Additionally, it seeks to characterize the higher education institutions within the country.MethodsThe data was retrieved from the Web of Science Core Collection using an advanced search tool with Boolean research strategies, covering the period from 1976 to 2022 for all PALOP and 1976 to 2019 for Mozambique. To map Mozambican higher institutions, information was sourced from the Ministry of Science Technology and Higher Education database. Descriptive statistics were employed to summarize the findings, while the VOSviewer program version 1.6.19 was utilized to visualize distance-based bibliometric networks, focusing on co-authorship among institutions and keyword co-occurrence.ResultsPortuguese-speaking African countries (PALOP) contribute 2.5 % (10,933 out of 442,309) to Africa's total scientific output, with Mozambique leading at 63.6 % (6,951 publications) followed by Angola at 16.6 % (1,811 publications). All PALOP countries experienced decreased scientific productivity during the third year of the COVID-19 pandemic. In Mozambique, over 70 % (1,710 out of 2,380) of health-related publications from 2011 to 2019 were concentrated in this period. Key journals for health sciences include PLOS ONE, Malaria Journal, and Tropical Medicine & International Health, focusing on HIV, malaria, and tuberculosis. Higher education institutions in Mozambique show regional disparities, with 67.9 % in the South and only 8.9 % in the North, indicating significant inequality in their distribution across the country.ConclusionThis study highlights Mozambique's significant progress in health research productivity over 43 years, establishing it as a leader among PALOP countries. The substantial increase in publications, particularly after 2008, underscores the nation's growing research capacity and commitment to addressing critical health challenges such as HIV, malaria, and tuberculosis. However, regional disparities in higher education access and limited research contributions from private universities remain high in Mozambique.

Project description:BackgroundAntibacterial resistant infections are rising continuously, resulting in increased morbidity and mortality worldwide. With no new antibiotic classes entering the market and the possibility of returning to the pre-antibiotic era, the Joint Programming Initiative on Antimicrobial Resistance (JPIAMR) was established to address this problem. We aimed to quantify the scale and scope of publicly funded antibacterial resistance research across JPIAMR countries and at the European Union (EU) level to identify gaps and future opportunities.MethodsWe did a systematic observational analysis examining antibacterial resistance research funding. Databases of funding organisations across 19 countries and at EU level were systematically searched for publicly funded antibacterial resistance research from Jan 1, 2007, to Dec 31, 2013. We categorised studies on the basis of the JPIAMR strategic research agenda's six priority topics (therapeutics, diagnostics, surveillance, transmission, environment, and interventions) and did an observational analysis. Only research funded by public funding bodies was collected and no private organisations were contacted for their investments. Projects in basic, applied, and clinical research, including epidemiological, public health, and veterinary research and trials were identified using keyword searches by organisations, and inclusion criteria were based on the JPIAMR strategic research agenda's six priority topics, using project titles and abstracts as filters.FindingsWe identified 1243 antibacterial resistance research projects, with a total public investment of €1·3 billion across 19 countries and at EU level, including public investment in the Innovative Medicines Initiative. Of the total amount invested in antibacterial resistance research across the time period, €646·6 million (49·5%) was invested at the national level and €659·2 million (50·5%) at the EU level. When projects were classified under the six priority topics we found that 763 (63%) of 1208 projects funded at national level were within the area of therapeutics, versus 185 (15%) in transmission, 131 (11%) in diagnostics, 53 (4%) in interventions, and only 37 (3%) in environment and 39 (3%) in surveillance.InterpretationThis was the first systematic analysis of research funding of antibacterial resistance of this scale and scope, which relied on the availability and accuracy of data from organisations included. Large variation was seen between countries both in terms of number of projects and associated investment and across the six priority topics. To determine the future direction of JPIAMR countries a clear picture of the funding landscape across Europe and Canada is needed. Countries should work together to increase the effect of research funding by strengthening national and international coordination and collaborations, harmonising research activities, and collectively pooling resources to fund multidisciplinary projects. The JPIAMR have developed a publicly available database to document the antibacterial resistance research collected and can be used as a baseline to analyse funding from 2014 onwards.FundingJPIAMR and the European Commission.

Project description:BackgroundThe European & Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership (EDCTP) is a partnership of European and sub-Saharan African countries that aims to accelerate the development of medical interventions against poverty-related diseases (PRDs). A bibliometric analysis was conducted to 1) measure research output from European and African researchers on PRDs, 2) describe collaboration patterns, and 3) assess the citation impact of clinical research funded by EDCTP.Methodology/principal findingsDisease-specific research publications were identified in Thomson Reuters Web of Science using search terms in titles, abstracts and keywords. Publication data, including citation counts, were extracted for 2003-2011. Analyses including output, share of global papers, normalised citation impact (NCI), and geographical distribution are presented. Data are presented as five-year moving averages. European EDCTP member countries accounted for ~33% of global research output in PRDs and sub-Saharan African countries for ~10% (2007-2011). Both regions contributed more to the global research output in malaria (43.4% and 22.2%, respectively). The overall number of PRD papers from sub-Saharan Africa increased markedly (>47%) since 2003, particularly for HIV/AIDS (102%) and tuberculosis (TB) (81%), and principally involving Southern and East Africa. For 2007-2011, European and sub-Saharan African research collaboration on PRDs was highly cited compared with the world average (NCI in brackets): HIV/AIDS 1.62 (NCI: 1.16), TB 2.11 (NCI: 1.06), malaria 1.81 (NCI: 1.22), and neglected infectious diseases 1.34 (NCI: 0.97). The NCI of EDCTP-funded papers for 2003-2011 was exceptionally high for HIV/AIDS (3.24), TB (4.08) and HIV/TB co-infection (5.10) compared with global research benchmarks (1.14, 1.05 and 1.35, respectively).ConclusionsThe volume and citation impact of papers from sub-Saharan Africa has increased since 2003, as has collaborative research between Europe and sub-Saharan Africa. >90% of publications from EDCTP-funded research were published in high-impact journals and are highly cited. These findings corroborate the benefit of collaborative research on PRDs.

Dataset Information

HIV research productivity and structural factors associated with HIV research output in European Union countries: a bibliometric analysis.

Objectives

Methods

Results

Conclusions

Publications

HIV research productivity and structural factors associated with HIV research output in European Union countries: a bibliometric analysis.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets