Dataset Information

Landscape of HIV Implementation Research Funded by the National Institutes of Health: A Mapping Review of Project Abstracts.

ABSTRACT: In 2019, the requisite biomedical and behavioral interventions to eliminate new HIV infections exist. "Ending the HIV Epidemic" now becomes primarily a challenge of will and implementation. This review maps the extent to which implementation research (IR) has been integrated into HIV research by reviewing the recent funding portfolio of the NIH. We searched NIH RePORTER for HIV and IR-related research projects funded from January 2013 to March 2018. The 4629 unique studies identified were screened using machine learning and manual methods. 216 abstracts met the eligibility criteria of HIV and IR. Key study characteristics were then abstracted. NIH currently funds HIV studies that are either formally IR (n?=?109) or preparatory for IR (n?=?107). Few (13%) projects mentioned a guiding implementation model, theory, or framework, and only 56% of all studies explicitly mentioned measuring an implementation outcome. Considering the study aims along an IR continuum, 18 (8%) studies examined barriers and facilitators, 43 (20%) developed implementation strategies, 46 (21%) piloted strategies, 73 (34%) tested a single strategy, and 35 (16%) compared strategies. A higher proportion of formal IR projects involved established interventions (e.g., integrated services) compared to newer interventions (e.g., pre-exposure prophylaxis). Prioritizing HIV-related IR in NIH and other federal funding opportunity announcements and expanded training in implementation science could have a substantial impact on ending the HIV pandemic. This review serves as a baseline by which to compare funding patterns and the sophistication of IR in HIV research over time.

SUBMITTER: Smith JD

PROVIDER: S-EPMC7220870 | biostudies-literature | 2020 Jun

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Landscape of HIV Implementation Research Funded by the National Institutes of Health: A Mapping Review of Project Abstracts.

Smith Justin D JD Li Dennis H DH Hirschhorn Lisa R LR Gallo Carlos C McNulty Moira M Phillips Gregory G Birkett Michelle M Rafferty Miriam M Rao Amrita A Villamar Juan A JA Baral Stefan S Mustanski Brian B Brown C Hendricks CH Benbow Nanette D ND

AIDS and behavior 20200601 6

In 2019, the requisite biomedical and behavioral interventions to eliminate new HIV infections exist. "Ending the HIV Epidemic" now becomes primarily a challenge of will and implementation. This review maps the extent to which implementation research (IR) has been integrated into HIV research by reviewing the recent funding portfolio of the NIH. We searched NIH RePORTER for HIV and IR-related research projects funded from January 2013 to March 2018. The 4629 unique studies identified were screen ...[more]

PMID: 31845078

Similar Datasets

Project description:Policy has a tremendous potential to improve population health when informed by research evidence. Such evidence, however, typically plays a suboptimal role in policymaking processes. The field of policy dissemination and implementation research (policy D&I) exists to address this challenge. The purpose of this study was to: (1) determine the extent to which policy D&I was funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH), (2) identify trends in NIH-funded policy D&I, and (3) describe characteristics of NIH-funded policy D&I projects.The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tool was used to identify all projects funded through D&I-focused funding announcements. We screened for policy D&I projects by searching project title, abstract, and term fields for mentions of "policy," "policies," "law," "legal," "legislation," "ordinance," "statute," "regulation," "regulatory," "code," or "rule." A project was classified as policy D&I if it explicitly proposed to conduct research about the content of a policy, the process through which it was developed, or outcomes it produced. A coding guide was iteratively developed, and all projects were independently coded by two researchers. ClinicalTrials.gov and PubMed were used to obtain additional project information and validate coding decisions. Descriptive statistics--stratified by funding mechanism, Institute, and project characteristics--were produced.Between 2007 and 2014, 146 projects were funded through the D&I funding announcements, 12 (8.2 %) of which were policy D&I. Policy D&I funding totaled $16,177,250, equivalent to 10.5 % of all funding through the D&I funding announcements. The proportion of funding for policy D&I projects ranged from 14.6 % in 2007 to 8.0 % in 2012. Policy D&I projects were primarily focused on policy outcomes (66.7 %), implementation (41.7 %), state-level policies (41.7 %), and policies within the USA (83.3 %). Tobacco (33.3 %) and cancer (25.0 %) control were the primary topics of focus. Many projects combined survey (58.3 %) and interview (33.3 %) methods with analysis of archival data sources.NIH has made an initial investment in policy D&I research, but the level of support has varied between Institutes. Policy D&I researchers have utilized a variety of designs, methods, and data sources to investigate the development processes, content, and outcomes of public and private policies.

Project description:ImportanceAdvancing the health equity agenda for Asian American, Native Hawaiian, and Pacific Islander (AA/NHPI) individuals has become an intersecting priority for federal agencies. However, the impact of federal investments and legislation to ensure systematic processes and resources to eliminate health disparities in AA/NHPI populations is unclear.ObjectiveTo perform a portfolio review of clinical research funded by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) for AA/NHPI populations and determine the level of NIH investment in serving these populations.Design, setting, and participantsCross-sectional study in which the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results system was queried for extramural AA/NHPI-focused clinical research projects conducted in the United States from January 1, 1992, to December 31, 2018. Clinical research funded under research project grants, centers, cooperative awards, research career awards, training grants, and fellowships was included, with an advanced text search for AA/NHPI countries and cultures of origin. Project titles and terms were screened for inclusion and project abstracts were reviewed to verify eligibility. Descriptive analyses were completed.Main outcomes and measuresOutcomes included NIH funding trends and characteristics of funded projects and organizations. The proportions of AA/NHPI-related funding trends were calculated using 2 denominators, total NIH expenditures and clinical research expenditures.ResultsThere were 5460 records identified, of which 891 studies were reviewed for eligibility. Of these, 529 clinical research studies focused on AA/NHPI participants composed 0.17% of the total NIH budget over 26 years. Projects studying AA/NHPI individuals in addition to other populations were funded across 17 NIH institutes and centers. The top 5 funders collectively contributed almost 60% of the total funding dollars for AA/NHPI projects and were the National Cancer Institute ($231 584 664), National Institute on Aging ($108 365 124), National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute ($67 232 910), National Institute on Minority Health and Health Disparities ($62 982 901), and National Institute on Mental Health ($60 072 779). Funding of these projects ($775 536 121) made up 0.17% of the overall NIH expenditures ($451 284 075 000) between 1992 and 2018, and 0.18% ($677 479 468) of the NIH research budget after 2000. Funding for AA/NHPI projects significantly increased over time, but the proportion of the total NIH budget has only increased from 0.12% before 2000 to 0.18% after 2000. Of total funding, 60.8% was awarded to research project grants compared with only 5.1% allocated to research career awards, training grants, and fellowships.Conclusions and relevanceIncreases in research dollars for AA/NHPI clinical research were not associated with increases in the overall NIH research budget, and underrepresentation of AA/NHPI subgroups still remains. Without overt direction from federal entities and dedicated funds for health disparities research, as well as parallel efforts to increase diversity in the biomedical workforce, investments may continue to languish for AA/NHPI populations.

Project description:The clinical trials community has a never-ending search for dependable and reliable ways to improve clinical research. This exploration has led to considerable interest in adaptive clinical trial designs, which provide the flexibility to adjust trial characteristics on the basis of data reviewed at interim stages. Statisticians and clinical investigators have proposed or implemented a wide variety of adaptations in clinical trials, but specific approaches have met with differing levels of support. Within industry, investigators are actively exploring the benefits and pitfalls associated with adaptive designs (ADs). For example, a Drug Information Association (DIA) working group on ADs has engaged regulatory agencies in discussions. Many researchers working on publicly funded clinical trials, however, are not yet fully engaged in this discussion. We organized the Scientific Advances in Adaptive Clinical Trial Designs Workshop to begin a conversation about using ADs in publicly funded research. Held in November of 2009, the 1½-day workshop brought together representatives from the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Food and Drug Administration (FDA), the European Medicines Agency (EMA), the pharmaceutical industry, nonprofit foundations, the patient advocacy community, and academia. The workshop offered a forum for participants to address issues of ADs that arise at the planning, designing, and execution stages of clinical trials, and to hear the perspectives of influential members of the clinical trials community. The participants also set forth recommendations for guiding action to promote the appropriate use of ADs. These recommendations have since been presented, discussed, and vetted in a number of venues including the University of Pennsylvania Conference on Statistical Issues in Clinical Trials and the Society for Clinical Trials annual meeting.To provide a brief overview of ADs, describe the rationale behind conducting the workshop, and summarize the main recommendations that were produced as a result of this workshop.There is a growing interest in the use of adaptive clinical trial designs. However, a number of logistical barriers need to be addressed in order to obtain the potential advantages of an AD. Currently, the pharmaceutical industry is well ahead of academic trialists with respect to addressing these barriers. Academic trialists will need to address important issues such as education, infrastructure, modifications to existing funding models, and the impact on Data and Safety Monitoring Boards (DSMB) in order to achieve the possible benefits of adaptive clinical trial designs.

Dataset Information

Landscape of HIV Implementation Research Funded by the National Institutes of Health: A Mapping Review of Project Abstracts.

Publications

Landscape of HIV Implementation Research Funded by the National Institutes of Health: A Mapping Review of Project Abstracts.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure