Investment In Health Research Research Articles

Growing and fostering knowledge translation: Recommendations for health organisations from the SPHERE Envisionarium

ObjectivesDespite considerable investments in health research, there is a disconnect between what is known to enhance healthcare and how healthcare is delivered in situ. Knowledge translation (KT) plays a vital role in addressing this disconnect. Some governments promote KT via initiatives that encourage collaboration between researchers, clinicians, communities and others; this includes Maridulu Budyari Gumal SPHERE (Sydney Partnership for Health, Education, Research and Enterprise). To promote KT and address the knowledge-to-action gap, we held an envisionarium with SPHERE members, to generate recommendations to promote KT in, and beyond, SPHERE. Methods: To discern these recommendations, an envisionarium was facilitated with SPHERE members. Participants included researchers, healthcare providers and others (n = 16). Participants considered how KT can be fostered and promoted. Discussion notes and participant responses were thematically analysed. Results: Four recommendations were identified, accompanied by practical steps to action these to enable health and research institutions to foster KT. These include the need to: provide access to resources; reconceptualise impact and innovation; promote the legitimacy of different knowledges; and engage everyone in KT. Conclusions: These recommendations are important for three reasons. First, they demonstrate that KT requires more than funding – it also requires networks that buoy the dynamic flow of knowledge in its varied manifestations. Second, the recommendations demonstrate the importance of supportive organisational mechanisms that inculcate positive, KT-friendly structures or cultures, while affording individuals the opportunity to organically foster innovation. Third, they demonstrate the methodological value of envisionariums to disrupt the status quo and envision different ways to promote KT.

Placing the US Federal Investment in Religion, Spirituality, and Health Research in Context: A Systematic Review and Comparison with Social Support and Optimism Funding Levels.

Religion and spirituality (R/S) have been linked to better physical and mental health. The US government has funded several research studies that include a focus on R/S but the amount of support over the last several years appears to be declining. To better understand these funding trends for R/S and health research, we chose relevant comparisons from projects that include a focus on social support and optimism. We identified total amount of funding, change in funding patterns over time, and characteristics of funded projects from a large database of US research projects (Federal RePORTER). We reviewed 5093 projects for social support and 6030 projects for optimism before narrowing the number of eligible studies to 170 and 13, respectively. Social support projects received the largest investment of $205 million dollars. Funded awards for social support and optimism remained stable over time while R/S decreased (p = 0.01), intervention research was more characteristic and studies of African-American/Black participants were less characteristic of funded projects in social support than of R/S (ps < 0.001). Future research for R/S and health would likely benefit from continued focus on minority communities and on identifying and developing appropriate interventions to support individual and community health and well-being.

"Post-Protean" Public Health and the Geroscience Hypothesis.

Despite unprecedented investments in public health and biomedical research, improvements in life expectancy and healthy life expectancy have stagnated in the United States. Part of the reason for this development can be traced back to the influence of "Protean" over "Post-Protean" public health, the names that can be given to two contrasting visions of public health advanced in the early twentieth century. Protean public health prescribes "waging a war" against disease and was successful in reducing the early-life mortality risks from infectious disease. But Protean public health has proven less effective in improving the quality of life of older persons. Post-Protean public health prioritizes the experimental method and research into the indirect methods of improving health. It articulated a vision of public heath that was given a more concrete specification by Alex Comfort in what is now referred to as the Geroscience Hypothesis. To improve the health prospects of aging populations the dominance of Protean public health must be relaxed, to enable the benefits of Post-Protean public health to be realized. Doing so means shifting public health's aspirations towards increasing the healthspan vs "saving lives" by extending the duration of time older persons can survive by managing the multi-morbidities of late life.

Prioritising and incentivising productivity within indicator-based approaches to Research Impact Assessment: a commentary

Research Impact Assessment (RIA) represents one of a suite of policies intended to improve the impact generated from investment in health and medical research (HMR). Positivist indicator-based approaches to RIA are widely implemented but increasingly criticised as theoretically problematic, unfair, and burdensome. This commentary proposes there are useful outcomes that emerge from the process of applying an indicator-based RIA framework, separate from those encapsulated in the metrics themselves. The aim for this commentary is to demonstrate how the act of conducting an indicator-based approach to RIA can serve to optimise the productive gains from the investment in HMR. Prior research found that the issues regarding RIA are less about the choice of indicators/metrics, and more about the discussions prompted and activities incentivised by the process. This insight provides an opportunity to utilise indicator-based methods to purposely optimise the research impact. An indicator-based RIA framework specifically designed to optimise research impacts should: focus on researchers and the research process, rather than institution-level measures; utilise a project level unit of analysis that provides control to researchers and supports collaboration and accountability; provide for prospective implementation of RIA and the prospective orientation of research; establish a line of sight to the ultimate anticipated beneficiaries and impacts; Include process metrics/indicators to acknowledge interim steps on the pathway to final impacts; integrate ‘next’ users and prioritise the utilisation of research outputs as a critical measure; Integrate and align the incentives for researchers/research projects arising from RIA, with those existing within the prevailing research system; integrate with existing peer-review processes; and, adopt a system-wide approach where incremental improvements in the probability of translation from individual research projects, yields higher impact across the whole funding portfolio.Optimisation of the impacts from HMR investment represents the primary purpose of Research Impact policy. The process of conducting an indicator-based approach to RIA, which engages the researcher during the inception and planning phase, can directly contribute to this goal through improvements in the probability that an individual project will generate interim impacts. The research project funding process represents a promising forum to integrate this approach within the existing research system.

An in-depth exploration of researcher experiences of time and effort involved in health and social care research funding in the UK: The need for changes.

The need to reform the way in which research is undertaken is clear, with reducing research bureaucracy and waste at the forefront of this issue for the UK government, funding organisations, higher education institutions and wider research community. The aim of this study was to describe researchers' experiences of the time, effort and burden involved in funding processes-namely applying for research funding and fulfilling reporting requirements. This was an in-depth qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with researchers who had experience applying for funding and/or completing reporting requirements for a UK health and social care research funder between January 2018 and June 2021. Following thematic analysis, five key themes were identified describing researcher experiences of key issues around time, efforts and burden associated with funding processes. These themes encompassed (1) issues with the current funding model for health and social care research, (2) time and effort involved in funding processes, (3) the need for a streamlined end-to-end process, (4) implications for work-life balance, and (5) addressing the need for better support and communication. The findings from this study describe researcher experiences of tasks in the research pathway that currently take considerable time and effort. It was clear that whilst some of this time and effort is considered necessary, some is exacerbated by inefficient and ineffective processes, such as perceived under-funding of research or lack of clarity with regards to funder expectations. This in turn contributes to unnecessary researcher burden, research waste and negative research culture. Better investment in health and social care research and in the researchers themselves who design and deliver the research, alongside improvements in transparency, streamlining and research support could ensure a more positive research culture, and improve the quality of funded research.

Extramural US Federal Research Grants For Health Outcomes Associated With Climate Change Inadequate, Too Narrow In Focus.

Climate change causes and exacerbates disease, creates and worsens health disparities, disrupts health care delivery, and imposes a significant disease burden in the US and globally. Critical knowledge gaps hinder an evidence-based response and are perpetuated by scarce federal research funds. We identified and described extramural US federal research funding (that is, grants provided to organizations and institutions outside of federal agencies) that both addressed health outcomes associated with climate change and was awarded between 2010 and 2020. During this eleven-year period, 102 grants met our criteria, totaling approximately $58.7million, or approximately $5.3million per year (2020 adjusted US dollars). Federal investments in climate change and health research during this period failed to address the breadth of climate-sensitive exposures, health outcomes, and impacts on vulnerable populations. Moving forward, in addition to increasing investment in climate and health research across all known hazards, critical attention should be placed on vulnerable populations and health equity. To achieve this, increased federal research coordination and cooperation are needed, as well as a mechanism to track this funding.

Perspectives of agriculture, nutrition and health researchers regarding research governance in Malawi. Using a leadership, ethics, governance and systems framework

BackgroundResearch ethics is intertwined with and depends on building robust and responsive research governance systems alongside researchers. Globally there has been substantial investment in agriculture, nutrition, and health (ANH) research motivated by the need to improve health outcomes, such as micronutrient deficiencies in Sub-Saharan Africa. Although there has been a notable focus on ethical issues inherent in ANH studies, there has been scanty research examining researchers’ attitudes related to ANH research. This study was conducted to explore the perspectives of researchers who conducted an agronomic biofortification study in Malawi.MethodologyIn-depth interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of ten ANH researchers. Interviews were conducted online via Zoom, audio-recorded, transcribed verbatim, and thematically analysed using the Leadership, Ethics, Governance and Systems Framework.ResultsFour core aspects emerged: Leadership: The relevance of building ethics leadership and ethical competence among researchers. Ethics: There is a need to develop a framework that operationalises core ethical values that can guide the implementation of ANH research. Governance: Research guidelines were perceived to be too generic to guide ANH research. Systems: Researchers’ recommended the establishment of a specialised ANH research ethics committee.ConclusionsThe findings highlight the significance of building ethics leadership and supporting ethical competency amongst researchers. Researchers recommended the development of tailored approaches rather than utilising generic governance systems and frameworks that are drawn from medical research and thus not fit for purpose in this field. In Malawi, specialised ethics review committees are needed to guide ANH research.

Implementation research priorities for addressing the maternal health crisis in the USA: results from a modified Delphi study among researchers

BackgroundMaternal health outcomes in the USA are far worse than in peer nations. Increasing implementation research in maternity care is critical to addressing quality gaps and unwarranted variations in care. Implementation research priorities have not yet been defined or well represented in the plans for maternal health research investments in the USA.MethodsThis descriptive study used a modified Delphi method to solicit and rank research priorities at the intersection of implementation science and maternal health through two sequential web-based surveys. A purposeful, yet broad sample of researchers with relevant subject matter knowledge was identified through searches of published articles and grant databases. The surveys addressed five implementation research areas in maternal health: (1) practices to prioritize for broader implementation, (2) practices to prioritize for de-implementation, (3) research questions about implementation determinants, (4) research questions about implementation strategies, and (5) research questions about methods/measures.ResultsOf 160 eligible researchers, 82 (51.2%) agreed to participate. Participants were predominantly female (90%) and White (75%). Sixty completed at least one of two surveys. The practices that participants prioritized for broader implementation were improved postpartum care, perinatal and postpartum mood disorder screening and management, and standardized management of hypertensive disorders of pregnancy. For de-implementation, practices believed to be most impactful if removed from or reduced in maternity care were cesarean delivery for low-risk patients and routine discontinuation of all psychiatric medications during pregnancy. The top methodological priorities of participants were improving the extent to which implementation science frameworks and measures address equity and developing approaches for involving patients in implementation research.ConclusionsThrough a web-based Delphi exercise, we identified implementation research priorities that researchers consider to have the greatest potential to improve the quality of maternity care in the USA. This study also demonstrates the feasibility of using modified Delphi approaches to engage researchers in setting implementation research priorities within a clinical area.

Policies and practices in Nigeria’s pharmaceutical sector: A mixed methods exploration of stakeholders’ perspectives on strategic reforms

BackgroundPolicies and practices are key factors that determine development in any sector. In the Nigerian setting however, there is lack of evidence that the pharmaceutical sector is embedded with contextual policies and practices that can expedite development in the system. This inadvertently has an impact as regards access to medicines for the citizenry. This study therefore aimed at adopting a bottom-up approach in gathering insights into stakeholders’ perspectives on policies and practices in Nigeria’s pharmaceutical sector, and how they influence Medicines’ Security and consequent access to healthcare. MethodsData were collected using a self completion questionnaire which was administered to stakeholders present during an event held in Abuja, the capital of Nigeria, which focused on improving the Nigerian pharmaceutical sector. A total number of 82 questionnaires were administered to participants. Following retrieval of questionnaires, quantitative data were subjected to descriptive and inferential analyses, whilst textual data were analysed using thematic analysis approach. ResultsOf the 82 questionnaires administered, response rate was 92.68%. Two-thirds of the participants were males (69.7%). A quarter of the study participants were between the ages of 41 and 50 years, whilst those above 50 years represented the most populous proportion of the sample (38.2%). A considerable proportion (48%) of the study participants indicated that current policy ecosystem was hostile for pharmaceutical sector growth and development. Also, majority (97.3%) of the study participants indicated that increased investment in health research could stimulate the development of the pharmaceutical sector. Majority of the study participants indicated the need for collaboration between pharmaceutical companies, research institutes and the petrochemical industry. ConclusionThis study consequently identified several critical factors that could stimulate development in the sector, including increased funding of research; stringent implementation of existing policies; and prioritisation of pharmaceutical sector by government and other key stakeholders.

Climate change and communicable diseases in the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) countries

A review of the extant literature reveals the extent to which the spread of communicable diseases will be significantly impacted by climate change. Specific research into how this will likely be observed in the countries of the Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) is, however, greatly lacking. This report summarises the unique public health challenges faced by the GCC countries in the coming century, and outlines the need for greater investment in public health research and disease surveillance to better forecast the imminent epidemiological landscape. Significant data gaps currently exist regarding vector occurrence, spatial climate measures, and communicable disease case counts in the GCC — presenting an immediate research priority for the region. We outline policy work necessary to strengthen public health interventions, and to facilitate evidence-driven mitigation strategies. Such research will require a transdisciplinary approach, utilising existing cross-border public health initiatives, to ensure that such investigations are well-targeted and effectively communicated.

Obstetric racism and perceived quality of maternity care in Canada: Voices of Black women.

Obstetric racism in healthcare encounters impact on access to quality maternal healthcare for Black childbearing women yet remains underexplored in Canada. Understanding the experiences of Black Canadian women is critical to inform policy and create targeted interventions to address obstetric racism and advanced maternal health equity. The aim of this study was to explore the experiences of obstetric racism and its influence on perceived quality of maternity care among Black women in Toronto, Canada. Qualitative research was conducted using a critical qualitative inquiry approach. We conducted a semi-structured interviews with 24 Black women who were pregnant and/or have given birth in the last 3 years. The interviews explored their experiences seeking care during pregnancy/childbirth and perceived quality of care. Two themes were generated through the process of thematic analysis: (1) Manifestations and Impacts of Obstetric Racism and (2) Strategies for Addressing Obstetric Racism. Narratives of being dismissed, objectified, dehumanized, trauma and paternalism were reflected in the accounts of the participants. These experiences undermined the quality of care, hindered therapeutic relationships and contributed to mistrust. Black women understood the nature and impact of obstetric racism as it relates to the quality of maternal health care, their safety, and well-being. Participants recommended the need for anti-Black racism training specific to caring of Black childbearing women and increasing Black healthcare provider representation in perinatal settings as strategies to address obstetric racism. Investment in Black maternal health research is urgently needed to generate meaningful evidence to inform policy and interventions to advanced maternal health equity.

Development of a novel and more holistic approach for assessing impact in health and medical research: the Research Impact Assessment Framework.

Considered investment in health and medical research (HMR) is critical for fostering a healthcare system that is sustainable, effective, responsive, and innovative. While several tools exist to measure the impact of research, few assess the research environment that nurtures and supports impactful research and the strategic alignment of research with societal needs. This perspective article discusses the limitations of existing assessment tools and presents a novel Research Impact Assessment Framework designed to enable more strategic and targeted investment towards HMR, having the potential for significant public benefit.

Describing the state of a research network: A mixed methods approach to network evaluation.

Diabetes Action Canada Strategy for Patient-Oriented Research (SPOR) Network in Chronic Disease was formed in 2016 and is funded primarily through the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR). We propose a novel mixed-methods approach to a network evaluation integrating the State of Network Evaluation framework and the Canadian Academy of Health Sciences (CAHS) preferred framework and indicators. We measure key network themes of connectivity, health and results, and impact and return on investment associated with health research networks. Our methods consist of a longitudinal cross-sectional network survey of members and social network analysis to examine Network Connectivity and assess the frequency of interactions, the topics discussed during them, and how networking effectively facilitates interactions and collaboration among members. Network Health will be evaluated through semistructured interviews, a membership survey inquiring about satisfaction and experience with the Network, and a review of documentary sources related to funding and infrastructure to evaluate Network Sustainability. Finally, we will examine Network Results and Impact using the CAHS preferred framework and indicators to measure returns on investment in health research across the five domains of the CAHS framework, which include: advancing knowledge, capacity building, informing decision making, health impact, and economic and social impact. Indicators will be assessed with various methods, including bibliometric analyses, review of relevant documentary sources (annual reports), member activities informing health and research policy, and Patient Partner involvement. The Network Evaluation will provide members and stakeholders with information for planning, improvements, and funding future Network endeavors.

Appreciative Inquiry and Boot Camp Translation: Combining Methods for Community Health Improvement

Communities are dealing with persistent health problems, despite the enormous investment in health research, service delivery, and program development to address those health concerns. While there may be an evidence base for addressing some community health concerns, too often there is incomplete or no medical evidence for addressing many concerns. The High Plains Research Network and Colorado Research Network have used an appreciative inquiry approach to their work for several years, identifying positive aspects of care and developing programs to replicate what is working. Based on five years of informal appreciative-inquiry research and five formal appreciative inquiry projects, we have developed a standard process and method for conducting appreciative-inquiry guided Boot Camp Translations. The purpose of this methodology manuscript is to describe the general approach of using appreciative inquiry as a research tool and the standard process for conducting appreciative inquiry as a patient engagement tool to identify local evidence and develop local solutions.

Funding for health policy and systems research in the Eastern Mediterranean region: amount, source and key determinants.

To provide an overview of the current state of funding for health policy and systems research (HPSR) on a national level across the Eastern Mediterranean region (EMR), and to examine the key factors influencing funding for HPSR in the region. A multistep approach was employed, involving a documentation review, secondary data analysis and key informant interviews with 30 stakeholders from five countries in the EMR. Findings are presented narratively (and where applicable as percentages). National funding for research and development (R&D) in general, and for health research in particular, has been low in comparative terms and lagging behind at the global scale, while funding for HPSR has been lacking on a national level. None of the 22 EMR countries studied had explicit national funding or a budget line for HPSR. Analysis of funding sources of 1821 published HPSR articles in the EMR (2010-2019) showed that the most notable source was external/international grants (45.6%), followed by university/academia (35.1%), and government (9.5%). Although HPSR publications have been increasing over time, this still falls short of the scale needed for strengthening health systems and informing current transformations in the region. Findings from the interviews identified several factors influencing investment in or funding for HPSR in the EMR. Many of the EMR's policy priorities are related to health systems, however our research finds that overall investment in health research and HPSR is still low, with limited recognition of the importance of HPSR in the EMR.

Framework for the development and evaluation of complex interventions: gap analysis, workshop and consultation-informed update.

The Medical Research Council published the second edition of its framework in 2006 on developing and evaluating complex interventions. Since then, there have been considerable developments in the field of complex intervention research. The objective of this project was to update the framework in the light of these developments. The framework aims to help research teams prioritise research questions and design, and conduct research with an appropriate choice of methods, rather than to provide detailed guidance on the use of specific methods. There were four stages to the update: (1) gap analysis to identify developments in the methods and practice since the previous framework was published; (2) an expert workshop of 36 participants to discuss the topics identified in the gap analysis; (3) an open consultation process to seek comments on a first draft of the new framework; and (4) findings from the previous stages were used to redraft the framework, and final expert review was obtained. The process was overseen by a Scientific Advisory Group representing the range of relevant National Institute for Health Research and Medical Research Council research investments. Key changes to the previous framework include (1) an updated definition of complex interventions, highlighting the dynamic relationship between the intervention and its context; (2) an emphasis on the use of diverse research perspectives: efficacy, effectiveness, theory-based and systems perspectives; (3) a focus on the usefulness of evidence as the basis for determining research perspective and questions; (4) an increased focus on interventions developed outside research teams, for example changes in policy or health services delivery; and (5) the identification of six 'core elements' that should guide all phases of complex intervention research: consider context; develop, refine and test programme theory; engage stakeholders; identify key uncertainties; refine the intervention; and economic considerations. We divide the research process into four phases: development, feasibility, evaluation and implementation. For each phase we provide a concise summary of recent developments, key points to address and signposts to further reading. We also present case studies to illustrate the points being made throughout. The framework aims to help research teams prioritise research questions and design and conduct research with an appropriate choice of methods, rather than to provide detailed guidance on the use of specific methods. In many of the areas of innovation that we highlight, such as the use of systems approaches, there are still only a few practical examples. We refer to more specific and detailed guidance where available and note where promising approaches require further development. This new framework incorporates developments in complex intervention research published since the previous edition was written in 2006. As well as taking account of established practice and recent refinements, we draw attention to new approaches and place greater emphasis on economic considerations in complex intervention research. We have introduced a new emphasis on the importance of context and the value of understanding interventions as 'events in systems' that produce effects through interactions with features of the contexts in which they are implemented. The framework adopts a pluralist approach, encouraging researchers and research funders to adopt diverse research perspectives and to select research questions and methods pragmatically, with the aim of providing evidence that is useful to decision-makers. We call for further work to develop relevant methods and provide examples in practice. The use of this framework should be monitored and the move should be made to a more fluid resource in the future, for example a web-based format that can be frequently updated to incorporate new material and links to emerging resources. This project was jointly funded by the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the National Institute for Health Research (Department of Health and Social Care 73514).

Open the doors to (de-identifiable) data.

Open the doors to (de-identifiable) data.

You Can’t Manage What You Do Not Measure - Why Adolescent Mental Health Monitoring Matters

Despite growing awareness of mental health conditions in recent years, funding for mental health science has not increased. The 2020 International Alliance of Mental Health Research Funders report “The Inequities of Mental Health Research Funding” [1] reveals some stark inequalities and highlights issues with resource allocation. Although the global cost of mental health conditions is projected to exceed $6 trillion by 2030 [2], global investments in mental health research have remained approximately $3.7 billion per year in real terms between 2015 and 2019, equating to roughly 50 cents per person per year.

COVID-19 recovery rate and its association with development

Objectives:The recovery rate is important to determine a country’s development towards controlling coronavirus. It is a function of myriad factors – death rate, cases requiring hospitalization, quality of care, and discharge policies, among others. India’s recovery rate is growing steadily from an earlier low of 10% to 11%. It is imperative to understand the determinants of recovery rate in a country to enable improvements in the same.Material and Methods:COVID-19 data have been compiled from several sources, including the Ministry of Health and Family Welfare, National Disaster Management Authority, and Indian Council of Medical Research and demographic and health data from Census of India, 2011, National Health Profile, 2019, and were used. The study uses linear regression to understand the relationship between recovery rate and development indicators in India.Results:Our analysis emphasizes the beneficial impacts of the health system and better economy on the recovery rate. Investment in health, urban stay, non-slum and non-poor population, and effective governance is instrumental in improving recovery rate.Conclusion:Scaling up health facilities and medical infrastructure, slum decongestion, focus on economically weaker sections, capacity building of health workers and ameliorating long-term investments in health, health research, and better quality of living are also essential to address recovery of COVID-19.

National Institutes of Health investment into cardiac arrest research: A study for the CARES Surveillance Group

ObjectiveTo calculate and compare the National Institutes of Health (NIH) research investment for cardiac arrest (CA) to other leading causes of disability-adjusted life years (DALY) in the United States (U.S.). MethodsA search within NIH RePORTER for 2017 was performed using single common resuscitation terms. Grants were individually reviewed and categorized as CA research (yes/no) using predefined criteria. DALY were calculated as the sum of years of life lost (YLL) and years lived with disability (YLD) using all adult non-traumatic out-of-hospital CA (OHCA) from the CARES database for 2017. Total DALY for the study population were extrapolated to a national level. Leading causes of DALY were obtained from the Global Burden of Disease study and funding data were extracted from the NIH Categorical Spending Report for comparison. The outcome measure was U.S. dollars invested per annual DALY. ResultsThe search yielded 290 grants, of which 87 (30%) were classified as CA research. Total funding for CA research in 2017 was $37.1M. A total of 73,915 (97%) cases from CARES met study inclusion criteria for the DALY analysis. The total DALY following adult OHCA in the U.S. population were 4,335,949 (YLL 4,332,166, YLD 3784). Per annual DALY, the NIH invested $287 for diabetes, $92 for stroke, $55 for ischemic heart disease, and $9 for CA research. ConclusionThe NIH investment into CA research is far less than other comparable causes of death and disability in the U.S. These results should help inform utilization of limited resources to improve public health.