Show Me the Money! Trends in Funding for Health Services Research.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Simpson LA
PROVIDER: S-EPMC6149363 | biostudies-literature | 2018 Oct
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Publications
Show Me the Money! Trends in Funding for Health Services Research.
Simpson Lisa A LA Koechlein Liz L Menachemi Nir N Wolfe Meghan J MJ
Health services research 20181001
This paper presents longitudinal data representing federal funding for health services research and discusses the observed trends in the larger context of overall funding for research and development in the United States. By putting into context public and private funding trends, the authors examine how these trends effect the supply and demand of the health services research workforce. ...[more]
Similar Datasets
Project description:Obtaining grant funding is a fundamental component to achieving a successful research career. A successful grant application needs to meet specific mechanistic expectations of reviewers and funders. This paper provides an overview of the importance of grant funding within medical education, followed by a stepwise discussion of strategies for creating a successful grant application for medical education-based proposals. The last section includes a list of available medical education research grants.
| S-EPMC6324695 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Lung cancer is one of malignant tumors with the highest morbidity and mortality in the world. At present, research of early diagnosis, treatment, prognosis, and metastasis associated biomarkers is most active. This article reviewed the research status of lung cancer biomarkers and analyzed the funding situation in the field of lung cancer markers in recent 10 years in China and abroad, to provide a reference for the future basic and clinical translational research of lung cancer biomarkers.
| S-EPMC3815715 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Cancer research has carved an astonishing trajectory giving rise to a multi billion euro global network covering most domains of science and including all manner of research funders from industry to government and philanthropic funders. We have estimated that in 2004/2005 the global spend on cancer research was 14,030 million euro, with the USA, dominated by the NCI (c. 83%) accounting for the largest absolute spend. This is between 2 and 3 times the level of per capita spend compared to EU-15 and Europe, respectively. In Europe, the UK is at comparable levels of spend compared to the USA. Funding for cancer research in Europe is split almost 50:50 between philanthropic and governmental sources. Cancer research productivity in terms of outputs (publications) is slightly greater in Europe compared to the USA with an increasing trend towards more applied (clinical) outputs. Both the USA and Europe have equally strong industry-supported output levels.
| S-EPMC5527789 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundWorldwide, an estimated 4·4 million newborn deaths and stillbirths occurred in 2020, and 98% of these deaths occurred in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs). We aimed to analyse new research grants for newborns and stillbirth awarded by major funders in 2019-20, and all research funding allocated to LMIC-based institutions in 2011-20.MethodsFor this systematic analysis, we searched Dimensions, the world's largest research funding database, for grants relevant to neonatal and stillbirth research. Included grants were categorised by in-depth content analysis, with descriptive quantitative analyses by funder and recipient countries, research pipeline, topic, and year.FindingsGlobally, in 2019-20, major funders awarded a mean annual total of US$577·1 million per year for newborn and stillbirth research (mean total of 550 grants per year). $166·3 million (28·8%) of $577·1 million was directed to small and vulnerable newborn research, but only $8·4 million (1·5%) was directed to stillbirth research. The majority of funding, $537·0 million (93·0%), was allocated to organisations based in high-income countries. Between 2011 and 2020, LMIC-based recipients were named on 1985 grants from all funders worth $486·7 million, of which $73·1 million (15·0%) was allocated to small and vulnerable newborn research and $12·0 million (2·5%) was allocated to stillbirth research. Most LMIC funding supported preclinical or observational studies ($236·8 million [48·7%] of $486·7 million), with implementation research receiving only $13·9 million (2·9%).InterpretationAlthough investment in research related to neonatal health and stillbirths has increased between 2011 and 2020, there are marked disparities in distribution geographically, between major causes of mortality, and among research pipeline types. Stillbirth research received minimal funding in both high-income countries and LMICs, despite a similar number of deaths compared with neonates. Direct investment in LMIC-led research, especially for implementation research, could accelerate the slow global progress on stillbirth prevention and newborn survival.FundingNone.TranslationsFor the French, German and Spanish translations of the abstract see Supplementary Materials section.
| S-EPMC10603613 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundHealth 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.MethodsIn 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.ResultsDuring the 5-year study period, 21 grants were awarded that included a focus on prison health research, for a total of $2 289 948. Six of these grants were operating grants and 6 supported graduate or fellowship training. In total, 0.13% of all grants and 0.05% of all funding was for prison health research.InterpretationA relatively small proportion of CIHR grants and funding were awarded for prison health research between 2010 and 2014. If prison health is a priority for Canada, strategic initiatives that include funding opportunities could be developed to support prison health research in Canada.
| S-EPMC5378501 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundTotal domestic and international funding for malaria is inadequate to achieve WHO global targets in burden reduction by 2030. We describe the trends of investments in malaria-related research in sub-Saharan Africa and compare investment with national disease burden to identify areas of funding strength and potentially neglected populations. We also considered funding for malaria control.MethodsResearch funding data related to malaria for 1997-2013 were sourced from existing datasets, from 13 major public and philanthropic global health funders, and from funding databases. Investments (reported in US$) were considered by geographical area and compared with data on parasite prevalence and populations at risk in sub-Saharan Africa. 45 sub-Saharan African countries were ranked by amount of research funding received.FindingsWe found 333 research awards totalling US$814·4 million. Public health research covered $308·1 million (37·8%) and clinical trials covered $275·2 million (33·8%). Tanzania ($107·8 million [13·2%]), Uganda ($97·9 million [12·0%]), and Kenya ($92·9 million [11·4%]) received the highest sum of research investment and the most research awards. Malawi, Tanzania, and Uganda remained highly ranked after adjusting for national gross domestic product. Countries with a reasonably high malaria burden that received little research investment or funding for malaria control included Central African Republic (ranked 40th) and Sierra Leone (ranked 35th). Congo (Brazzaville) and Guinea had reasonably high malaria mortality, yet Congo (Brazzaville) ranked 38th and Guinea ranked 25th, thus receiving little investment.InterpretationSome countries receive reasonably large investments in malaria-related research (Tanzania, Kenya, Uganda), whereas others receive little or no investments (Sierra Leone, Central African Republic). Research investments are typically highest in countries where funding for malaria control is also high. Investment strategies should consider more equitable research and operational investments across countries to include currently neglected and susceptible populations.FundingRoyal Society of Tropical Medicine and Hygiene and Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.
| S-EPMC5567191 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAllocation of health research funds among diseases has never been evaluated in China. This study aimed to examine the relationship between disease-specific funding levels of National Nature Science Foundation of China (NSFC), the main governmental resource for health research in China, and burden of disease.MethodsFunding magnitudes for 53 diseases or conditions were obtained from the website of NSFC. Measures of disease burden, mortality, years of life lost (YLLs) and disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), were derived from the Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. The relationship between NSFC funding and disease burden was analyzed with univariate linear regression. For each measure associated with funding, regression-derived estimates were used to calculate the expected funds for each disease. The actual and expected funds were then compared. We also evaluated the impacts of changes of disease burden metrics since 1990, and differences from the world averages on NSFC funding.ResultsNSFC health research funding was associated with disease burden measured in mortality (R = 0.33, P = 0.02), YLLs (R = 0.39, P = 0.004), and DALYs (R? = 0.40, P = 0.003). But none of the changes of mortality (R = 0.22, P = 0.12), YLLs (R =? -0.04, P = 0.79) and DALYs (R =? -0.003, P = 0.98) since 1990 was associated with the funding magnitudes. None of the differences of mortality (R =? -0.11, P = 0.45), YLLs (R =? -0.11, P = 0.43) and DALYs (R = ?-0.12, P = 0.38) from that of the concurrent world averages were associated with the funding magnitudes. Measured by DALY, stroke and COPD received the least funding compared to expected; while leukemia and diabetes received the most funding compared to expected.ConclusionAlthough NSFC funding were roughly associated with disease burden as measured in mortality, YLLs and DALYs. Some major diseases such as stroke were underfunded; while others such as leukaemia were overfunded. Change of disease burden during the last 20 years and country-specialized disease burden were not reflected in current allocation of NSFC funds.
| S-EPMC4219749 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundAustralian health and medical research funders support substantial research efforts, and incentives within grant funding schemes influence researcher behaviour. We aimed to determine to what extent Australian health and medical funders incentivise responsible research practices.MethodsWe conducted an audit of instructions from research grant and fellowship schemes. Eight national research grants and fellowships were purposively sampled to select schemes that awarded the largest amount of funds. The funding scheme instructions were assessed against 9 criteria to determine to what extent they incentivised these responsible research and reporting practices: (1) publicly register study protocols before starting data collection, (2) register analysis protocols before starting data analysis, (3) make study data openly available, (4) make analysis code openly available, (5) make research materials openly available, (6) discourage use of publication metrics, (7) conduct quality research (e.g. adhere to reporting guidelines), (8) collaborate with a statistician, and (9) adhere to other responsible research practices. Each criterion was answered using one of the following responses: "Instructed", "Encouraged", or "No mention".ResultsAcross the 8 schemes from 5 funders, applicants were instructed or encouraged to address a median of 4 (range 0 to 5) of the 9 criteria. Three criteria received no mention in any scheme (register analysis protocols, make analysis code open, collaborate with a statistician). Importantly, most incentives did not seem strong as applicants were only instructed to register study protocols, discourage use of publication metrics and conduct quality research. Other criteria were encouraged but were not required.ConclusionsFunders could strengthen the incentives for responsible research practices by requiring grant and fellowship applicants to implement these practices in their proposals. Administering institutions could be required to implement these practices to be eligible for funding. Strongly rewarding researchers for implementing robust research practices could lead to sustained improvements in the quality of health and medical research.
| S-EPMC8328133 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesConsidering recent shifts in global funding landscapes, this study analyzes Canada's long-term global health research funding trends in the hope of informing a new Canadian global health research strategy. Examining past investments can help prioritize limited future resources to either build on Canada's existing strengths or fill gaps where needed, while simultaneously informing the investments of research funders in other countries.MethodsAdministrative data were analyzed covering all 1584 global health research grants awarded by the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR) to 927 unique principal investigators from 2000 to 2016, totalling C$341 million. Existing metadata associated with each grant was supplemented by additional qualitative coding. Descriptive time-series analyses of global health research grant data were conducted using various measures related to each grant's recipient (e.g., province, university, sex, distribution) and subject matter (e.g., research theme, area, focus).ResultsCIHR's total annual global health research funding increased sharply from $3.6 million in FY2000/2001 to $30.3 million in FY2015/2016, with the largest share of research funding now focused on health equity-representing nearly 50% of CIHR's global health research funding. Past grants have concentrated on infectious disease and public health research. One third of CIHR's global health grant funding went to 20 principal investigators. Only 42.2% of global health research funding came from CIHR's open investigator-driven competitions, with the rest coming from strategic priority-driven competitions.ConclusionGlobal health research has seen steady increases in funding from CIHR's open competitions when preceded by investment in strategic competitions, which suggests the level of a national research funding agency's strategic investments in global health research may determine the size of the field in their country. The greatest concentration of past investment lies in health equity research, followed by infectious disease research. Future analyses of research funding would benefit from an internationally accepted keyword classification scheme and more granular administrative data.
| S-EPMC7046862 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundExacerbated by an aging population, musculoskeletal diseases are a chronic and growing problem in the United States that impose significant health and economic burdens. The objective of this study was to analyze the correlation between the burden of diseases and the federal funds assigned to health-related research through the National Institutes of Health (NIH).MethodsAn ecological study design was used to examine the relationship between NIH research funding and disease burden for 60 disease categories. We used the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study 2019 to measure disease burden and the NIH Research, Condition, and Disease Categories (RCDC) data to identify 60 disease categories aligned with available GBD data. NIH funding data was obtained from the RCDC system and the NIH Office of Budget. Using linear regression models, we observed that musculoskeletal diseases were among the most underfunded (i.e., negative residuals from the model) with respect to disease burden.FindingsMusculoskeletal diseases were underfunded, with neck pain being the most underfunded at only 0.83% of expected funding. Low back pain, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis were also underfunded at 13.88%, 35.08%, and 66.26%, respectively. Musculoskeletal diseases were the leading cause of years lived with disability and the third leading cause in terms of prevalence and disability-adjusted life years. Despite the increasing burden of these diseases, the allocation of NIH funding to the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS) has remained low compared to other institutes.InterpretationDespite the increasing health burden and economic cost of $980 billion annually, the allocation of NIH funding to the NIAMS has remained low compared to other institutes. These findings suggest that the NIH may need to reassess its allocation of research funding to align with the current health challenges of our country. Furthermore, these clinically relevant observations highlight the need to increase research funding for musculoskeletal diseases and improve their prevention, diagnosis, and treatment.FundingNo funding.
| S-EPMC10788788 | biostudies-literature