Current State of Funded National Cancer Institute Grants That Include Economic Analyses.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT: Background
Health economics research is an integral part of the transdisciplinary research supported by the National Cancer Institute (NCI). To better understand NCI activities in this area, we conducted a portfolio analysis of funded NCI grants including health economics research.Methods
We examined all competitive grants funded by NCI from fiscal years 2015 to 2020 that included economic analyses or outcomes. Grant titles, abstracts, and specific aims were independently reviewed by 2 study team members; content of included grants was then coded for analysis.Results
A total 212 grants were identified from searches; 146 of these included economic analyses and were included in the portfolio analysis. These 146 grants represent approximately 0.9% of all NCI competitively funded grants awarded 2015-2020. Of these grants, 100 were R01 awards, representing approximately 2.4% of all NCI R01 grants funded 2015-2020. The most common study type was interventional randomized controlled-trial, followed by simulation or model. Screening and prevention were the most frequent grant cancer continuum topic; survivorship was included in only 16 grants (11.0%). Cost-effectiveness analysis was the most frequently listed economic outcome (97 grants, 66.4%), whereas policy impact (20 grants, 13.7%) and financial hardship (15 grants, 10.3%) were less-frequently included economic outcomes. However, economic outcomes differed by cancer control continuum topic, with financial hardship being included in a greater proportion of treatment and survivorship grants.Conclusions
Although relatively small, the NCI portfolio of funded grants including economic analyses is diverse, covering a range of cancer types, methods, and economic outcomes, and increasing over time.
SUBMITTER: Halpern MT
PROVIDER: S-EPMC9255945 | biostudies-literature |
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature
Similar Datasets
Project description:Leveraging emerging opportunities in data science to open new frontiers in heart, lung, blood, and sleep research is one of the major strategic objectives of the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI), one of the 27 Institutes/Centers within the National Institutes of Health (NIH). To assess NHLBI's recent funding of research grants in data science and to identify its relative areas of focus within data science, a portfolio analysis from fiscal year 2008 to fiscal year 2017 was performed. In this portfolio analysis, an efficient and reliable methodology was used to identify data science research grants by utilizing several NIH databases and search technologies (iSearch, Query View Reporting system, and IN-SPIRE [Pacific Northwest National Laboratory, Richland, WA]). Six hundred thirty data science-focused extramural research grants supported by NHLBI were identified using keyword searches based primarily on NIH's working definitions of bioinformatics and computational biology. Further analysis characterized the distribution of these grants among the heart, lung, blood, and sleep disease areas as well as the subtypes of data science projects funded by NHLBI. Information was also collected for data science research grants funded by other NIH institutes/centers using the same search and analysis methodology. The funding comparison among different NIH institutes/centers highlighted relative data science areas of emphasis and further identified opportunities for potential data science areas in which NHLBI could foster research advances.
| S-EPMC7032595 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Through the R25 Cancer Education Grants Program (CEGP), the National Cancer Institute (NCI) has been supporting the broad educational needs of the cancer research and cancer healthcare communities since 1974. NCI sponsored a workshop on September 13, 2016 in Bethesda, Maryland, with the objectives of sharing best practices in cancer education, communicating R25 CEGP programmatic information, and gathering ideas to strengthen the R25 CEGP to better meet the emerging needs in cancer education in the face of a rapidly changing landscape in cancer research and cancer care. With 53 leaders in cancer education in attendance, the workshop featured an overview of the R25 CEGP by NCI Program Staff, a showcase of several types of CEGP programs by current R25 grantees, and in-depth discussions on a broad range of questions critical for the continued success of the R25 CEGP. The workshop afforded an opportunity, for the first time, for cancer researchers and clinicians conducting different forms of cancer education activities to gather in one place as leaders of a community of increasing importance. The discussion resulted in a set of suggestions that will benefit the R25 CEGP and cancer education in general. There was a general consensus among the participants that bringing the cancer education community together is a significant achievement of the workshop that will have a long-lasting impact on cancer education.
| S-EPMC5290060 | biostudies-literature
Project description:PURPOSE:Implementation science offers methods to evaluate the translation of genomic medicine research into practice. The extent to which the National Institutes of Health (NIH) human genomics grant portfolio includes implementation science is unknown. This brief report's objective is to describe recently funded implementation science studies in genomic medicine in the NIH grant portfolio, and identify remaining gaps. METHODS:We identified investigator-initiated NIH research grants on implementation science in genomic medicine (funding initiated 2012-2016). A codebook was adapted from the literature, three authors coded grants, and descriptive statistics were calculated for each code. RESULTS:Forty-two grants fit the inclusion criteria (~1.75% of investigator-initiated genomics grants). The majority of included grants proposed qualitative and/or quantitative methods with cross-sectional study designs, and described clinical settings and primarily white, non-Hispanic study populations. Most grants were in oncology and examined genetic testing for risk assessment. Finally, grants lacked the use of implementation science frameworks, and most examined uptake of genomic medicine and/or assessed patient-centeredness. CONCLUSION:We identified large gaps in implementation science studies in genomic medicine in the funded NIH portfolio over the past 5 years. To move the genomics field forward, investigator-initiated research grants should employ rigorous implementation science methods within diverse settings and populations.
| S-EPMC5920776 | biostudies-literature
Project description:RATIONALE:Funding decisions for cardiovascular R01 grant applications at the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) largely hinge on percentile rankings. It is not known whether this approach enables the highest impact science. OBJECTIVE:Our aim was to conduct an observational analysis of percentile rankings and bibliometric outcomes for a contemporary set of funded NHLBI cardiovascular R01 grants. METHODS AND RESULTS:We identified 1492 investigator-initiated de novo R01 grant applications that were funded between 2001 and 2008 and followed their progress for linked publications and citations to those publications. Our coprimary end points were citations received per million dollars of funding, citations obtained <2 years of publication, and 2-year citations for each grant's maximally cited paper. In 7654 grant-years of funding that generated $3004 million of total National Institutes of Health awards, the portfolio yielded 16 793 publications that appeared between 2001 and 2012 (median per grant, 8; 25th and 75th percentiles, 4 and 14; range, 0-123), which received 2 224 255 citations (median per grant, 1048; 25th and 75th percentiles, 492 and 1932; range, 0-16 295). We found no association between percentile rankings and citation metrics; the absence of association persisted even after accounting for calendar time, grant duration, number of grants acknowledged per paper, number of authors per paper, early investigator status, human versus nonhuman focus, and institutional funding. An exploratory machine learning analysis suggested that grants with the best percentile rankings did yield more maximally cited papers. CONCLUSIONS:In a large cohort of NHLBI-funded cardiovascular R01 grants, we were unable to find a monotonic association between better percentile ranking and higher scientific impact as assessed by citation metrics.
| S-EPMC3959724 | biostudies-literature
Project description:ObjectivesAmid a rapid increase in cancer care costs, we examined the extent to which economic evaluations (EEs) were conducted for new treatments evaluated in clinical trials at SWOG, a large National Cancer Institute-sponsored cancer research network.MethodsWe investigated phase III cancer treatment clinical trials activated from 1980 onward with primary articles reporting the protocol-designated endpoints published in scientific journals by 2017. Using PubMed, Web of Science, and EconLit, we searched for EEs using trial name, cancer type, information on the comparison arms, and refined keywords for EE designs. We reported the overall proportion of trials with associated EEs and trends of this proportion over time. We synthesized and analyzed information on funding sources, health outcomes, and sources of quality-of-life and cost data from the EEs.ResultsAmong 182 examined trials, 15 EEs were associated with 13 (7.1%) trials. Among the EEs, almost half (7 of 15) were either unfunded or did not report funding information, whereas nearly half (7 of 15) were funded by pharmaceutical companies and 2 (2 of 15, 13.3%) were supported by federal funding. All EEs reported a healthcare payer perspective. The proportion of trials with an associated EE increased from 1980 to 1989 and 2000 to 2009, but never exceeded 11%. Sources for cost and quality-of-life data for the EEs primarily came from outside the clinical trials.ConclusionsFew economic studies of treatments evaluated in National Cancer Institute-sponsored clinical trials have been conducted. Policymakers, payers, and patients lack economic evidence to consider newly evaluated cancer treatments, despite an urgent need to control healthcare costs.
| S-EPMC8262264 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:Rapid publication of clinical trials is essential in order for the findings to yield maximal benefits for public health and scientific progress. Factors affecting the speed of publication of the main results of government-funded trials have not been well characterized. METHODS:We analyzed 244 extramural randomized clinical trials of cardiovascular interventions that were supported by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI). We selected trials for which data collection had been completed between January 1, 2000, and December 31, 2011. Our primary outcome measure was the time between completion of the trial and publication of the main results in a peer-reviewed journal. RESULTS:As of March 31, 2012, the main results of 156 trials (64%) had been published (Kaplan-Meier median time to publication, 25 months, with 57% published within 30 months). Trials that focused on clinical events were published more rapidly than those that focused on surrogate measures (median, 9 months vs. 31 months; P<0.001). The only independent predictors of more rapid publication were a focus on clinical events rather than surrogate end points (adjusted publication rate ratio, 2.11; 95% confidence interval, 1.26 to 3.53; P=0.004) and higher costs of conducting the trial, up to a threshold of approximately $5 million (P<0.001). The 37 trials that focused on clinical events and cost at least $5 million accounted for 67% of the funds spent on clinical trials but received 82% of the citations. After adjustment of the analysis for a focus on clinical events and for cost, trial results that were classified as positive were published more quickly than those classified as negative. CONCLUSIONS:Results of less than two thirds of NHLBI-funded randomized clinical trials of cardiovascular interventions were published within 30 months after completion of the trial. Trials that focused on clinical events were published more quickly than those that focused on surrogate end points. (Funded by the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute.).
| S-EPMC3928673 | biostudies-literature
Project description:The National Institute of Academic Anaesthesia (NIAA) was founded in 2008 to lead a UK strategy for developing academic anaesthesia. We aimed to assess the distribution of applications and quantify the academic returns of NIAA-supported research grants, as this has hitherto not been analysed. We sought data on the baseline characteristics of all grant applicants and recipients. Every grant recipient from 2008 to 2015 was contacted to ascertain the status of their supported research projects. We also examined Google Scholar, Scopus® database and InCites Journal Citation Reports for citation, author and journal metrics, respectively. In total, 495 research project applications were made, with 150 grants being awarded. Data on 121 out of 150 (80.7%) grant awards, accounting for £3.5 million, were collected, of which 91 completed studies resulted in 140 publications and 2759 citations. The median (IQR [range]) time to first or only publication was 3 (2-4 [0-9]) years. The overall cost per publication was £14,970 (£7457-£24,998 [£2212-£73,755]) and the cost per citation was £1515 (£323-£3785 [£70-£36,182]), with 1 (0-2 [0-8]) publication and 4 (0-25 [0-265]) citations resulting per grant. The impact factor of journals in which publications arose was 4.7 (2.5-6.2 [0-47.8]), with the highest impact arising from clinical and basic science studies, particularly in the fields of pain and peri-operative medicine. Grants were most frequently awarded to clinical and basic science categories of study, but in terms of specialty, critical care medicine and peri-operative medicine received the greatest number of grants. Superficially, there seemed a geographical disparity, with 123 (82%) grants being awarded to researchers in England, London receiving 48 (32%) of these. However, this was in proportion to the number of grant applications received by country or city of application, such that there was no significant difference in overall success rates. There was no significant difference in productivity in terms of publications and citations from grants awarded to each city. The 150 grants were awarded to 107 recipients (identified as the most senior applicant for each grant), 27 of whom received ? two grants. Recipients had a median career total of 21 (8-76 [0-254]) publications and 302 (44-1320 [0-8167]) citations, with an h-index of 8 (3-22 [0-54]). We conclude that a key determinant of grant success is simply applying. This is the first study to report the distribution and scholarly output of individual anaesthesia research grants, particularly from a collaborative body such as the NIAA, and can be used as a benchmark to further develop academic anaesthesia in the UK and beyond.
| S-EPMC5969081 | biostudies-other
Project description:Colorectal cancer (CRC) represents a major public health problem as the second leading cause of cancer-related mortality in the United States. Of an estimated 140,000 newly diagnosed CRC cases in 2018, roughly one-third of these patients will have a primary tumor located in the distal large bowel or rectum. The current standard-of-care approach includes curative-intent surgery, often after preoperative (neoadjuvant) radiotherapy (RT), to increase rates of tumor down-staging, clinical and pathologic response, as well as improving surgical resection quality. However, despite advancements in surgical techniques, as well as sharpened precision of dosimetry offered by contemporary RT delivery platforms, the oncology community continues to face challenges related to disease relapse. Ongoing investigations are aimed at testing novel radiosensitizing agents and treatments that might exploit the systemic antitumor effects of RT using immunotherapies. If successful, these treatments may usher in a new curative paradigm for rectal cancers, such that surgical interventions may be avoided. Importantly, this disease offers an opportunity to correlate matched paired biopsies, radiographic response, and molecular mechanisms of treatment sensitivity and resistance with clinical outcomes. Herein, the authors highlight the available evidence from preclinical models and early-phase studies, with an emphasis on promising developmental therapeutics undergoing prospective validation in larger scale clinical trials. This review by the National Cancer Institute's Radiation Research Program Colorectal Cancer Working Group provides an updated, comprehensive examination of the continuously evolving state of the science regarding radiosensitizer drug development in the curative treatment of CRC.
| S-EPMC6663584 | biostudies-literature
Project description:RATIONALE:The American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) allowed National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute to fund R01 grants that fared less well on peer review than those funded by meeting a payline threshold. It is not clear whether the sudden availability of additional funding enabled research of similar or lesser citation impact than already funded work. OBJECTIVE:To compare the citation impact of ARRA-funded de novo National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute R01 grants with concurrent de novo National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute R01 grants funded by standard payline mechanisms. METHODS AND RESULTS:We identified de novo (type 1) R01 grants funded by National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute in fiscal year 2009: these included 458 funded by meeting Institute's published payline and 165 funded only because of ARRA funding. Compared with payline grants, ARRA grants received fewer total funds (median values, $1.03 versus $1.87 million; P<0.001) for a shorter duration (median values including no-cost extensions, 3.0 versus 4.9 years; P<0.001). Through May 2014, the payline R01 grants generated 3895 publications, whereas the ARRA R01 grants generated 996. Using the InCites database from Thomson-Reuters, we calculated a normalized citation impact for each grant by weighting each article for the number of citations it received normalizing for subject, article type, and year of publication. The ARRA R01 grants had a similar normalized citation impact per $1 million spent as the payline grants (median values [interquartile range], 2.15 [0.73-4.68] versus 2.03 [0.75-4.10]; P=0.61). The similar impact of the ARRA grants persisted even after accounting for potential confounders. CONCLUSIONS:Despite shorter durations and lower budgets, ARRA R01 grants had comparable citation outcomes per $million spent to that of contemporaneously funded payline R01 grants.
| S-EPMC4387375 | biostudies-literature
Project description:Survival of junior scientists in academic biomedical research is difficult in today's highly competitive funding climate. National Institute of Health (NIH) data on first-time R01 grantees indicate the rate at which early investigators drop out from a NIH-supported research career is most rapid 4 to 5 years from the first R01 award. The factors associated with a high risk of dropping out, and whether these factors impact all junior investigators equally, are unclear. We identified a cohort of 1,496 investigators who received their first R01-equivalent (R01-e) awards from the National Institute of Allergy and Infectious Diseases between 2003 and 2010, and studied all their subsequent NIH grant applications through 2016. Ultimately, 57% of the cohort were successful in obtaining new R01-e funding, despite highly competitive conditions. Among those investigators who failed to compete successfully for new funding (43%), the average time to dropping out was 5 years. Investigators who successfully obtained new grants showed remarkable within-person consistency across multiple grant submission behaviors, including submitting more applications per year, more renewal applications, and more applications to multiple NIH Institutes. Funded investigators appeared to have two advantages over their unfunded peers at the outset: they had better scores on their first R01-e grants and they demonstrated an early ability to write applications that would be scored, not triaged. The cohort rapidly segregated into two very different groups on the basis of PI consistency in the quality and frequency of applications submitted after their first R01-e award. Lastly, we identified a number of specific demographic factors, intitutional characteristics, and grant submission behaviors that were associated with successful outcomes, and assessed their predictive value and relative importance for the likelihood of obtaining additional NIH funding.
| S-EPMC6135352 | biostudies-literature