Gastroenterology research in the United Kingdom: funding sources and impact.
Ontology highlight
ABSTRACT:
SUBMITTER: Lewison G
PROVIDER: S-EPMC1727198 | biostudies-other | 1998 Aug
REPOSITORIES: biostudies-other
Similar Datasets
Project description:Viral hepatitis is responsible for great health, social and economic burden both globally and in the UK. This study aimed to assess the research funding awarded to UK institutions for viral hepatitis research and the relationship of funded research to clinical and public health burden of viral hepatitis. Databases and websites were systematically searched for information on infectious disease research studies funded for the period 1997-2010. Studies specifically related to viral hepatitis research were identified and categorized in terms of funding by pathogen, disease and by a research and development value chain describing the type of science. The overall data set included 6165 studies (total investment £2.6 billion) of which £76.9 million (3.0%) was directed towards viral hepatitis across 323 studies (5.2%). By pathogen, there were four studies specifically investigating hepatitis A (£3.8 million), 69 studies for hepatitis B (21.4%) with total investment of £14.7 million (19.1%) and 236 (73.1%) hepatitis C studies (£62.7 million, 81.5%). There were 4 studies investigating hepatitis G, and none specifying hepatitis D or E. By associated area, viral hepatitis and therapeutics research received £17.0 million, vaccinology £3.1 million and diagnostics £2.9 million. Preclinical research received £50.3 million (65.4%) across 173 studies, whilst implementation and operational research received £19.4 million (25.3%) across 128 studies. The UK is engaged in much hepatology research, but there are areas where the burden is great and may require greater focus, such as hepatitis E, development of a vaccine for hepatitis C, and further research into hepatitis-associated cancers. Private sector data, and funding information from other countries, would also be useful in priority setting.
| S-EPMC4344814 | biostudies-other
Project description:In 1999, 270,000 cases of cancer were registered in the United Kingdom, placing a large burden on the NHS. Cancer outcome data in 1999 suggested that UK survival rates were poorer than most other European countries. In the same year, a Department of Health review noted that clinical trials accrual was poor (<3.5% of incident cases) and hypothesised that increasing research activity might improve outcomes and reduce the variability of outcomes across England. Thus, the National Cancer Research Network (NCRN) was established to increase participation in cancer clinical research.The NCRN was established in 2001 to provide a robust infrastructure for cancer clinical research and improvements in patient care. Remit of NCRN is to coordinate, support and deliver cancer clinical research through the provision of research support staff across England. The NCRN works closely with similar networks in Scotland, Wales and the Northern Ireland. A key aim of NCRN is to improve the speed of research and this was also assessed by comparing the speed of study delivery of a subset of cancer studies opening before and after NCRN was established.Patient recruitment increased through NCRN, with almost 32,000 (12% of annual incident cases) cancer patients being recruited each year. Study delivery has improved, with more studies meeting the recruitment target - 74% compared with 39% before NCRN was established.The coordinated approach to cancer clinical research has demonstrated increased accrual, wide participation and successful trial delivery, which should lead to improved outcomes and care.
| S-EPMC3101916 | biostudies-other
Project description:BackgroundMeasuring research impact is of critical interest to philanthropic and government funding agencies interested in ensuring that the research they fund is both scientifically excellent and has meaningful impact into health and other outcomes. The Beat Cancer Project (BCP) is a AUD $34 m cancer research funding scheme that commenced in 2011. It was initiated by an Australian charity (Cancer Council SA), and supported by the South Australian Government and the state's major universities.MethodsThis study applied Buxton and Hanney's Payback Framework to assess research impact generated from the BCP after 3 years of funding. Data sources were an audit of peer-reviewed publications from January 2011 to September 2014 from Web of Knowledge and a self-report survey of investigators awarded BCP research funding during its first 3 years of implementation (2011-2013). Of the 104 surveys, 92 (88%) were completed.ResultsThe BCP performed well across all five categories of the Payback Framework. In terms of knowledge production, 1257 peer-reviewed publications were generated and the mean impact factor of publishing journals increased annually. There were many benefits to future research with 21 respondents (23%) reporting career advancement, and 110 higher degrees obtained or expected (including 84 PhDs). Overall, 52% of funded projects generated tools for future research. The funded research attracted substantial further income yielding a very high rate of leverage. For every AUD $1 that the cancer charity invested, the BCP gained an additional AUD $6.06. Five projects (5%) had informed policy and 5 (5%) informed product development, with an additional 31 (34%) and 35 (38%) projects, respectively, anticipating doing so. In terms of health and sector and broader economic benefits, 8 (9%) projects had influenced practice or behaviour of health staff and 32 (34%) would reportedly to do so in the future.ConclusionsResearch impact was a priority of charity and government funders and led to a deliberate funding strategy. Emphasising research impact while maintaining rigorous, competitive processes can achieve the joint objectives of excellence in research, yielding good research impact and a high rate of leverage for philanthropic and public investment, as indicated by these early results.
| S-EPMC5944042 | biostudies-literature
Project description:OBJECTIVE:To identify, synthesise and critically assess the empirical evidence of the impact generated by publicly and charity-funded health research in the United Kingdom. METHODS:We conducted a systematic literature review of the empirical evidence published in English in peer-reviewed journals between 2006 and 2017. Studies meeting the inclusion criteria were selected and their findings were analysed using the Payback Framework and categorised into five main dimensions, namely knowledge, benefits to future research and research use, benefits from informing policy and product development, health and health sector benefits, and broader economic benefits. We assessed the studies for risk of selection, reporting and funding bias. RESULTS:Thirteen studies met the inclusion criteria. The majority of the studies (10 out of 13) assessed impact at multiple domains including the main five key themes of the Payback Framework. All of them showed a positive impact of funded research on outcomes. Of those studies, one (8%), six (46%) and six (46%) presented a low, moderate and high risk of bias, respectively. CONCLUSIONS:Empirical evidence on the impact of publicly and charity-funded research is still limited and subject to funding and selection bias. More work is needed to establish the causal effects of funded research on academic outcomes, policy, practice and the broader economy.
| S-EPMC6394081 | biostudies-other
Project description:Aims:The purpose of this study was to initiate and stimulate collaborative research efforts to support United European Gastroenterology Federation (UEG) member societies facilitating digestive health research in European on the one hand and, on the other hand, to increase EU-funded digestive health research by providing evidence and advice to funding bodies on priority areas. The UEG Research Committee initiated a survey of the current and future research interests of each individual UEG ordinary member society (specialist societies). Methods:A questionnaire was sent by mail to 17 UEG ordinary member societies asking them to specify research demands related to the most urgent medical need including basic science research, translational research, clinical research, patient management research and research on disease prevention, in an open fashion but with limited word count. Results:The responses from 13 societies were analysed in a semi-quantitative and in a qualitative way, and were clustered into five domains with two aspects each that were consented and shared between three and seven of the responding 13 societies. These clusters resemble topics such as 'Hot topics' (e.g. life-style, nutrition, microbial-host interaction), Biomarkers (genetic profiling, gut-brain interaction), Advanced technology (artificial intelligence, personalised medicine), Global research tools (bio-banking, EU trials), and Medical training (education, prevention). Conclusion:The generated topic list allows both collaboration between individual specialist societies as well as initiating and fostering future research calls at the EU level and beyond when approaching stakeholders.
| S-EPMC6620881 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In this paper, we estimate the impact of receiving an NIH grant on subsequent publications and citations. Our sample consists of all applications (unsuccessful as well as successful) to the NIH from 1980 to 2000 for standard research grants (R01s). Both OLS and IV estimates show that receipt of an NIH research grant (worth roughly $1.7 million) leads to only one additional publication over the next five years, which corresponds to a 7 percent increase. The limited impact of NIH grants is consistent with a model in which the market for research funding is competitive, so that the loss of an NIH grant simply causes researchers to shift to another source of funding.
| S-EPMC3156466 | biostudies-literature
Project description:In 2004, the Alfred P. Sloan Foundation launched a new program focused on incubating a new field, "Microbiology of the Built Environment" (MoBE). By the end of 2017, the program had supported the publication of hundreds of scholarly works, but it was unclear to what extent it had stimulated the development of a new research community. We identified 307 works funded by the MoBE program, as well as a comparison set of 698 authors who published in the same journals during the same period of time but were not part of the Sloan Foundation-funded collaboration. Our analysis of collaboration networks for both groups of authors suggests that the Sloan Foundation's program resulted in a more consolidated community of researchers, specifically in terms of number of components, diameter, density, and transitivity of the coauthor networks. In addition to highlighting the success of this particular program, our method could be applied to other fields to examine the impact of funding programs and other large-scale initiatives on the formation of research communities.
| S-EPMC6581276 | biostudies-other
Project description:COVID-19 was declared a global pandemic on 11 March 2020; the United Kingdom (UK) implemented quarantine measures shortly afterward, resulting in rapid changes in how owners managed and interacted with their horses. This study provides a rapid analysis of the initial impact of the COVID-19 outbreak on the management of UK leisure and competition horses. A 17 question online survey was distributed via equestrian social media sites to ascertain the impact of COVID-19 on horse and yard management and on human-horse interactions. Frequency analysis combined with Chi-squared and thematic analyses identified the impact of COVID-19 on UK horse owners. Major changes within horse management and horse-human interactions were reported for the majority of horse owners (>65%), regardless of the establishment type or region. Social distancing and visiting restrictions were implemented at most yards, but nearly half were not providing hand sanitization or disinfection protocols for the shared areas/equipment to prevent cross-contamination between users. The financial impact of the pandemic combined with restricted access to veterinary professionals resulted in owners expressing concerns that horse health and welfare may be compromised as a result. Horse owners also felt that the reduced opportunities for horse-human interactions were negatively affecting their mental health and wellbeing.
| S-EPMC7600939 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BACKGROUND:The National Neonatal Research Database (NNRD) is a rich repository of pre-defined clinical data extracted at regular intervals from point-of-care, clinician-entered electronic patient records on all admissions to National Health Service neonatal units in England, Wales, and Scotland. We describe population coverage for England and assess data completeness and accuracy. METHODS:We determined population coverage of the NNRD in 2008-2014 through comparison with data on live births in England from the Office for National Statistics. We determined the completeness of seven data items on the NNRD. We assessed the accuracy of 44 data items (16 patient characteristics, 17 processes, 11 clinical outcomes) for infants enrolled in the multi-centre randomised controlled trial, Probiotics in Preterm Study (PiPs). We compared NNRD to PiPs data, the gold standard, and calculated discordancy rates using predefined criteria, and sensitivity, specificity and positive predictive values (PPV) of binary outcomes. RESULTS:The NNRD holds complete population data for England for infants born alive from 25+0 to 31+6 (completed weeks) of gestation; and 70% and 90% for those born at 23 and 24 weeks respectively. Completeness of patient characteristics was over 90%. Data were linked for 2257 episodes of care received by 1258 of the 1310 babies recruited to PiPs. Discordancy rates were <5% for 13/16 patient characteristics (exceptions: mode of delivery 8.7%; maternal ethnicity 10.2%, Lower layer Super Output Area 16.5%); <5% for 9/16 processes (exceptions: medical treatment for Patent ductus arteriosus 6.1%, high-dependency days 10.2%, central line days 11.2%, type of first milk 22.3%; and during first 14 days, summary of types of milk 13.8%; number of days of antibiotics 9.0%; whether antacid given 5.1%); and <5% for 10/11 clinical outcomes (exception: Bronchopulmonary dysplasia, defined as oxygen dependency at 36 weeks postmenstrual age 3.3%). The specificity of NNRD data was >85% for all outcomes; sensitivity ranged from 50-100%; PPV ranged from 58.8 (95% CI 40.8-75.4%) for porencephalic cyst to 99.7 (95% CI 99.2, 99.9%) for survival to discharge. CONCLUSIONS:The completeness and quality of data held in the NNRD is high, providing assurance in relation to use for multiple purposes, including national audit, health service evaluations, quality improvement, and research.
| S-EPMC6095506 | biostudies-literature
Project description:BackgroundOne in seven people living in the United Kingdom (UK) is an international migrant, rendering migrants an important population group with diverse and dynamic health and healthcare needs. However, there has been no attempt to map contemporary trends within migration health research conducted in the UK. The aim of this scoping review was to describe trends within migration health research and identify gaps for future research agendas.MethodsPubMed and Embase were systematically searched for empirical research with a primary focus on the concepts "health" and "migrants" published between 2001 and 2019. Findings were analysed using the UCL-Lancet Commission on Migration and Health Conceptual Framework for Migration and Health.ResultsIn total, 399 studies were included, with almost half (41.1%; 164/399) published in the last five years of the study period between 2015 and 2019 and a third (34.1%; 136/399) conducted in London. Studies included asylum seekers (14.8%; 59/399), refugees (12.3%; 49/399), and undocumented migrants or migrants with insecure status (3.5%; 14/399), but most articles (74.9%; 299/399) did not specify a migrant sub-group. The most studied health topics were specific disease outcomes such as infectious diseases (24.1% of studies) and mental health (19.1%) compared to examining systems or structures that impact health (27.8%), access to healthcare (26.3%), or specific exposures or behaviours (35.3%).ConclusionsThere has been a growing interest in migration health. Ensuring a diverse geographic distribution of research conducted in the UK and disaggregation by migrant sub-group is required for a nuanced and region-specific understanding of specific health needs, interventions and appropriate service delivery for different migrant populations. More research is needed to understand how migration policy and legislation intersect with both the social determinants of health and access to healthcare to shape the health of migrants in the UK.
| S-EPMC8352015 | biostudies-literature