Dataset Information

Canadian Institutes of Health Research funding of prison health research: a descriptive study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Health research provides a means to define health status and to identify ways to improve health. Our objective was to define the proportion of grants and funding from the Government of Canada's health research investment agency, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), that was awarded for prison health research, and to describe the characteristics of funded grants.

Methods

In this descriptive study, we defined prison health research as research on the health and health care of people in prisons and at the time of their release. We searched the CIHR Funding Decisions Database by subject and by investigator name for funded grants for prison health research in Canada in all competitions between 2010 and 2014. We calculated the proportion of grants and funding awarded for prison health research, and described the characteristics of funded grants.

Results

During the 5-year study period, 21 grants were awarded that included a focus on prison health research, for a total of $2?289?948. Six of these grants were operating grants and 6 supported graduate or fellowship training. In total, 0.13% of all grants and 0.05% of all funding was for prison health research.

Interpretation

A relatively small proportion of CIHR grants and funding were awarded for prison health research between 2010 and 2014. If prison health is a priority for Canada, strategic initiatives that include funding opportunities could be developed to support prison health research in Canada.

SUBMITTER: Kouyoumdjian FG

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5378501 | biostudies-literature | 2017 Jan-Mar

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Canadian Institutes of Health Research funding of prison health research: a descriptive study.

Kouyoumdjian Fiona G FG McIsaac Kathryn E KE Foran Jessica E JE Matheson Flora I FI

CMAJ open 20170110 1

<h4>Background</h4>Health research provides a means to define health status and to identify ways to improve health. Our objective was to define the proportion of grants and funding from the Government of Canada's health research investment agency, the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), that was awarded for prison health research, and to describe the characteristics of funded grants.<h4>Methods</h4>In this descriptive study, we defined prison health research as research on the health ...[more]

PMID: 28401113

Similar Datasets

Project description:BACKGROUND:Although women at all career stages are more likely to leave academia than men, early-career women are a particularly high-risk group. Research supports that women are less likely than men to receive research funding; however, whether funding success rates vary based on research content is unknown. We addressed gender differences in funding success rates for applications directed to one or more of 13 institutes, representing research communities, over a 15-year period. METHODS AND FINDINGS:We retrospectively reviewed 55,700 grant and 4,087 personnel award applications submitted to the Canadian Institutes of Health Research. We analyzed application success rates according to gender and the primary institute selected by applicants, pooled gender differences in success rates using random effects models, and fitted Poisson regression models to assess the effects of gender, time, and institute. We noted variable success rates among grant applications directed to selected institutes and declining success rates over time. Women submitted 31.1% and 44.7% of grant and personnel award applications, respectively. In the pooled estimate, women had significantly lower grant success (risk ratio [RR] 0.89, 95% confidence interval [CI] 0.84-0.94; p < 0.001; absolute difference 3.2%) compared with men, with substantial heterogeneity (I2 = 58%). Compared with men, women who directed grants to the Institutes of Cancer Research (RR 0.86, 95% CI 0.78-0.96), Circulatory and Respiratory Health (RR 0.74, 95% CI 0.66-0.84), Health Services and Policy Research (RR 0.78, 95% CI 0.68-0.90), and Musculoskeletal Health and Arthritis (RR 0.80, 95% CI 0.69-0.93) were significantly less likely to be funded, and those who directed grants to the Institute of Aboriginal People's Health (RR 1.67, 95% CI 1.0-2.7) were more likely to be funded. Overall, women also had significantly lower personnel award success (RR 0.75, 95% CI 0.65-0.86; p < 0.001; absolute difference 6.6%). Regression modelling identified that the effect of gender on grant success rates differed by institute and not time. Study limitations include use of institutes as a surrogate identifier, variability in designation of primary institute, and lack of access to metrics reflecting applicants, coapplicants, peer reviewers, and the peer-review process. CONCLUSIONS:Gender disparity existed overall in grant and personnel award success rates, especially for grants directed to selected research communities. Funding agencies should monitor for gender differences in grant success rates overall and by research content.

Project description:ImportanceThe US has historically resettled more refugees than any other country, with over 3.5 million refugees since 1980. The National Institutes of Health (NIH) is the largest public funder of biomedical research and development, but its role in mitigating many health disparities refugees experience through its funded research remains unknown.ObjectiveTo examine the NIH's research funding patterns on refugee health research over the last 2 decades.Design, setting, and participantsSecondary analysis of NIH-funded grants between 2000 and 2020 using a cross-sectional study design. The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools database was used to find relevant grants. Data were analyzed from November 2021 to September 2022.Main outcomes and measuresNIH grants awarded by year, state, grant type, research area, funding institute, grant duration, and amount funded.ResultsOf 1.7 million NIH grants funded over the 20-year study period, only 78 addressed refugee health. Funded grants were mostly training grants (23 grants [29%]), followed by hypothesis-driven research (R01 grants; 22 grants [28%]), pilot or preliminary investigation proposals (13 grants [17%]), and other types of grants (20 grants [26%]). The most studied research domain was mental health (36 grants [46%]), followed by refugee family dynamics and women's and children's health (14 grants [18%]). A total of 26 grants (33%) were funded by the National Institute of Mental Health and 15 (19%) were funded by the National Institute of Child Health and Human Development. Most grants were US-based (60 grants [76%]) and the state of Massachusetts received the greatest amount of funding ($14 825 852 [18%]). In 2020, the NIH allocated about $2.3 million to refugee health research, or less than 0.01% of its $42 billion budget that year. The number of grants funded in each time period did not always reflect changes in the number of refugees resettled in the US over the years.Conclusions and relevanceThis cross-sectional study found that there remain significant gaps in the understanding of and interventions in the health research needs of refugees locally and along the migratory route. To close these gaps, the NIH should increase its investments in comprehensive studies assessing the physical, mental, and social well-being of this expanding population. This can be achieved by ensuring that all NIH institutes allocate budgets specifically for refugee health research and extend support for the training of refugee researchers.

Project description:BackgroundReadmissions are a common problem in cardiac surgery. The goal of this study was to examine the frequency, timing, and associated risk factors for readmission after cardiac operations.MethodsA 10-center cohort study prospectively enrolled 5,158 adult cardiac surgical patients (5,059 included in analysis) to assess risk factors for infection after cardiac operations. Data were also collected on all-cause readmissions occurring within 65 days after the operation. Major outcomes included the readmission rate stratified by procedure type, cause of readmission, length of readmission stay, and discharge disposition after readmission. Multivariable Cox regression was used to determine risk factors for time to first readmission.ResultsThe overall rate of readmission was 18.7% (number of readmissions, 945). When stratified by the most common procedure type, readmission rates were isolated coronary artery bypass grafting, 14.9% (n = 248); isolated valve, 18.3% (n = 337); and coronary artery bypass grafting plus valve, 25.0% (n = 169). The three most common causes of first readmission within 30 days were infection (17.1% [n = 115]), arrhythmia (17.1% [n = 115]), and volume overload (13.5% [n = 91]). More first readmissions occurred within 30 days (80.6% [n = 672]) than after 30 days (19.4% [n = 162]), and 50% of patients were readmitted within 22 days from the index operation. The median length of stay during the first readmission was 5 days. Discharge in 15.8% of readmitted patients (n = 128) was to a location other than home. Baseline patient characteristics associated with readmission included female gender, diabetes mellitus on medication, chronic obstructive pulmonary disease, elevated creatinine, lower hemoglobin, and longer operation time. More complex surgical procedures were associated with an increased risk of readmission compared with the coronary artery bypass grafting group.ConclusionsNearly 1 of 5 patients who undergo cardiac operations require readmission, an outcome with significant health and economic implications. Management practices to avert in-hospital infections, reduce postoperative arrhythmias, and avoid volume overload offer important targets for quality improvement.

Project description:IntroductionConduct bibliometric analyses documenting the output of National Institutes of Health (NIH) tobacco-related and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) tobacco regulatory science (FDA-TRS) research portfolios.Aims and methodsPubMed identifiers for publications between 2015 and 2020 citing tobacco funding by NIH and/or FDA were imported into NIH iCite generating measures of productivity and influence, including number of citations, journal, relative citation ratios (RCR), and comparison of research influence across Web of Science (WoS) disciplines. Coauthorship and measures of centrality among and between NIH and FDA-supported investigators gauged collaboration.ResultsBetween FY 2015 and 2020, 8160 publications cited funding from NIH tobacco-related grants, 1776 cited FDA-TRS grants and 496 cited Common funding (ie, both NIH and FDA-TRS funding). The proportion of publications citing NIH grants declined while those citing FDA-TRS or Common funding rose significantly. Publications citing Common funding showed the highest influence (mean RCR = 2.52). Publications citing FDA-TRS funding displayed higher median RCRs than publications citing NIH funding in most WoS categories. Higher translational progress was estimated over time for FDA-TRS and Common publications compared to NIH publications. Authors citing Common funding scored highest across all collaboration measures.ConclusionsThis study demonstrates the high bibliometric output of tobacco research overall. The rise in publications citing FDA-TRS and Common likely reflects increased funding for TRS research. Higher RCRs across WoS subject categories and trends towards human translation among FDA-TRS and Common publications indicate focus on research to inform regulation. This analysis suggests that FDA support for TRS has expanded the field of tobacco control resulting in sustained productivity, influence, and collaboration.ImplicationsThis paper is the first effort to better describe the impact of tobacco research resulting from the addition of FDA funding for TRS in the past decade. The analysis provides impetus for further investigation into the publication topics and their focus which would offer insight into the specific evidence generated on tobacco control and regulation.

Dataset Information

Canadian Institutes of Health Research funding of prison health research: a descriptive study.

Background

Methods

Results

Interpretation

Publications

Canadian Institutes of Health Research funding of prison health research: a descriptive study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets