Dataset Information

Public funding for research on antibacterial resistance in the JPIAMR countries, the European Commission, and related European Union agencies: a systematic observational analysis.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Antibacterial 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.

Methods

We 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.

Findings

We 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.

Interpretation

This 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.

Funding

JPIAMR and the European Commission.

SUBMITTER: Kelly R

PROVIDER: S-EPMC4802226 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundInternationally, there is a drive to involve patients and the public in health research, due to recognition that patient and public involvement (PPI) may increase the impact and relevance of health research. This scoping review describes the extent and nature of PPI in dementia research in the European Union (EU) and summarises: (i) how PPI is carried out; and (ii) the impact of PPI on people living with dementia and the public, researchers, and the research process.MethodsRelevant studies were identified by searches in electronic reference databases and then filtered by two reviewers independently. Eligibility criteria for included studies were: (i) people living with dementia and/or care partners; (ii) PPI activity in dementia research conducted in the European Union (EU); and (iii) published between 2000 and 2018. An adapted version of the Guidance for Reporting Involvement of Patients and the Public (GRIPP2 SF) was used to collate the data. There was no language restriction other than the abstract needed to be available in English.ResultsWe found 19 studies from the UK and one from the Netherlands meeting inclusion criteria. No studies from other EU countries met inclusion criteria. Studies reported various methods of PPI including workshops, drop-in sessions, meetings, consensus conference, reader consultation and participatory approach. The reported aims of PPI included identifying and prioritising research questions (n = 4), research design (n = 5), undertaking and managing research (n = 8), and data analysis and interpretation (n = 3). All PPI related to design and implementation of non-pharmacological studies. One study described two pharmacological studies as case studies incorporating PPI. Seventeen studies reported anecdotal impacts of PPI.ConclusionsFurther development of PPI in dementia research in the EU and in pharmacological dementia research is required. Given the wide range of objectives of PPI in dementia research, PPI methods should be flexible and appropriate for the research context. Researchers should also formally evaluate and report the impacts of PPI for researchers, patients and the general public using good quality research designs to foster development of the field and enable the benefits and challenges of PPI to be better understood.Trial registrationPROSPERO 2017: CRD42017053260 .

Project description:ObjectivesThe aim of this study was to review and compare current health technology assessment (HTA) activities for medical devices across non-European Union HTA agencies.MethodsHTA activities for medical devices were evaluated from three perspectives: organizational structure, processes, and methods. Agencies were primarily selected upon membership of existing HTA networks. The data collection was performed in two stages: stage 1-agency Web-site assessment using a standardized questionnaire, followed by review and validation of the collected data by a representative of the agency; and stage 2-semi-structured telephone interviews with key informants of a sub-sample of agencies.ResultsIn total, thirty-six HTA agencies across twenty non-EU countries assessing medical devices were included. Twenty-seven of thirty-six (75 percent) agencies were judged at stage 1 to have adopted HTA-specific approaches for medical devices (MD-specific agencies) that were largely organizational or procedural. There appeared to be few differences in the organization, process and methods between MD-specific and non-MD-specific agencies. Although the majority (69 percent) of both categories of agency had specific methods guidance or policy for evidence submission, only one MD-specific agency had developed methodological guidelines specific to medical devices. In stage 2, many MD-specific agencies cited insufficient resources (budget, skilled employees), lack of coordination (between regulator and reimbursement bodies), and the inability to generalize findings from evidence synthesis to be key challenges in the HTA of medical devices.ConclusionsThe lack of evidence for differentiation in scientific methods for HTA of devices raises the question of whether HTA needs to develop new methods for medical devices but rather adapt existing methodological approaches. In contrast, organizational and/or procedural adaptation of existing HTA agency frameworks to accommodate medical devices appear relatively commonplace.

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.

Project description:BackgroundFunding agencies constitute one essential pillar for policy makers, researchers and health service delivery institutions. Such agencies are increasingly providing support for science implementation. In this paper, we investigate health research funding agencies and how they support the integration of science into policy, and of science into practice, and vice versa.MethodsWe selected six countries: Australia, The Netherlands, France, Canada, England and the United States. For 13 funding agencies, we compared their intentions to support, their actions related to science integration into policy and practice, and the reported benefits of this integration. We did a qualitative content analysis of the reports and information provided on the funding agencies' websites.ResultsMost funding agencies emphasized the importance of science integration into policy and practice in their strategic orientation, and stated how this integration was structured. Their funding activities were embedded in the push, pull, or linkage/exchange knowledge transfer model. However, few program funding efforts were based on all three models. The agencies reported more often on the benefits of integration on practice, rather than on policy. External programs that were funded largely covered science integration into policy and practice at the end of grant stage, while overlooking the initial stages. Finally, external funding actions were more prominent than internally initiated bridging activities and training activities on such integration.ConclusionsThis paper contributes to research on science implementation because it goes beyond the two community model of researchers versus end users, to include funding agencies. Users of knowledge may be end users in health organizations like hospitals; civil servants assigned to decision making positions within funding agencies; civil servants outside of the Ministry of Health, such as the Ministry of the Environment; politicians deciding on health-related legislation; or even university researchers whose work builds on previous research. This heterogeneous sample of users may require different user-specific mechanisms for research initiation, development and dissemination. This paper builds the foundation for further discussion on science implementation from the perspective of funding agencies in the health field. In general, case studies can help in identifying best practices for evidence-informed decision making.

Project description:BACKGROUND:Fertility rates in Europe are among the lowest in the world, which may be attributed to both biological and lifestyle factors. Cost and reimbursement of fertility treatments vary across Europe, although its citizens enjoy wide access to fertility care. Since few regional studies evaluating public support for fertility treatment exist, we conducted the Listening IVF and Fertility in Europe (LIFE) survey to ascertain public perception of in vitro fertilization (IVF) and gamete donation as a treatment for infertility among European men and women. METHODS AND FINDINGS:This survey was distributed via an online questionnaire to 8,682 individuals who were voluntary participants in an online research panel residing in France, Germany, Italy, Spain, Sweden, or the UK. The survey covered items to determine respondents' beliefs regarding IVF and its success, the need for public funding, the use of IVF among modern families with different lifestyles, and the support for gamete donation. Results were analyzed by age, country of origin, sex, and sexual orientation. A total of 6,110 (70% of total) men and women responded. Among all respondents, 10% had undergone IVF treatment and 48% had considered or would consider IVF in case of infertility. Respondents estimated IVF mean success rate to be 47% and over half of respondents believed that availability of IVF would encourage people to delay conception. Although 93% of respondents believed that IVF treatment should be publicly funded to some extent, a majority believed that secondary infertility or use of fertility treatments allowing to delay parenthood should be financed privately. Survey respondents believed that the mean number of stimulated IVF cycles funded publicly should be limited 2 to 3 (average 2.4). 79% of respondents were willing to pay for IVF if needed with a mean amount of 5,400 € for a child brought to life through IVF. According to respondents, mean minimum and maximum ages for IVF should be 29 and 42 years old, respectively. The current survey showed support for egg and sperm donation (78%), for IVF in single women (61%) and for same-sex female couples (64%). When analyzing the results per group (i.e., sex, age, sexual orientation, and countries), youngest age groups, homosexuals, bisexuals, German respondents, and men had similar overall positive attitudes and beliefs toward IVF and opinions on public funding. Perceived limits to availability were stronger in women. CONCLUSION:Overall, the survey results demonstrate a positive attitude among respondents in an online panel toward IVF, gamete donation, and support for public funding for fertility treatment. These findings could potentially drive discussions between patients and prescribers to explore IVF treatment and among legislators and payers to support public funding for these procedures.

Project description:BackgroundTobacco and alcohol are the main risk factors for oral squamous cell carcinoma, the low survival rate of which is a public health problem. European-wide health policies (a prevention campaign, tobacco packaging) have been put in place to inform the population of the risks associated with consumption. Due to the increase in smoking among women, the incidence of this disease remains high. The identification of internet research data on the population could help to measure the impact of and better position these preventive measures. The objective was to analyze a potential temporal association between public health programs and interest in oral cancers on the internet in the European Union (EU).MethodsA search of data from Google ©, Wikipedia © and Twitter © users in 28 European countries relating to oral cancer between 2004 and 2019 was completed. Bibliometric analysis of press and scientific articles over the same period was also performed. The association between these data and the introduction of public health programs in Europe was studied.ResultsThere was a temporal association between changes in tobacco packaging and a significant increase in internet searches for oral cancer in seven countries. Unlike national policies and ad campaigns, the European awareness program Make Sense has had no influence on internet research. There was an asymmetric correlation in internet searches between publications on oral cancer from scientific articles or "traditional" media (weak association) and those from internet media such as Twitter © or Wikipedia © (strong association).ConclusionOur work highlights seven areas around which oral cancer awareness in Europe could be refocused, such as a change in the communication of health warnings on cigarette packs, the establishment of a more explicit campaign name regarding oral cancer, the involvement of public figures and associations in initiatives to be organized at the local level and the strengthening of awareness of the dangers of tobacco in the development of oral cancer.