Global trends in health research and development expenditures – the challenge of making reliable estimates for international comparison

Young, A. W.; Terry, Robert F; Røttingen, John-Arne; Viergever, Roderik F.

doi:10.1186/1478-4505-13-7

Cited by 10 publications

(11 citation statements)

References 6 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…There are also limitations to analyzing global expenditure data search, elaborated in greater detail in a recent article by Young and colleagues [34]. The first is the challenge of comparing data collected from different countries.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ebola research funding: a systematic analysis, 1997–2015

Fitchett¹,

Lichtman²,

Soyode³

et al. 2016

Journal of Global Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe latest outbreak of Ebola in West Africa overwhelmed the affected countries, with the impact on health extending far beyond Ebola–related deaths that have exceeded 11 000. The need to promptly mobilise resources to control emerging infections is widely recognized. Yet, data on research funding for emerging infections remains inadequately documented.MethodsWe defined research investment as all funding flows for Ebola and/or Marburg virus from 1997 to April 2015 whose primary purpose was to advance knowledge and new technologies to prevent or cure disease. We sourced data directly from funding organizations and estimated the investment in 2015 US dollars (US$).ResultsFunding for Ebola and Marburg virus research in 1997 to 2015 amounted to US$ 1.035 billion, including US$ 435.4 million (42.0%) awarded in 2014 and 2015. Public sources of funding invested US$ 758.8 million (73.1%), philanthropic sources US$ 65.1 million (6.3%), and joint public/private/philanthropic ventures accounted for US$ 213.8 million (20.6%). Prior to the Ebola outbreak in 2014, pre–clinical research dominated research with US$ 443.6 million (73.9%) investment. After the outbreak, however, investment for new product development increased 942.7–fold and that for clinical trials rose 23.5–fold. Investment in new tools to control Ebola and Marburg virus amounted to US$ 399.1 million, with 61.3% awarded for vaccine research, 29.2% for novel therapeutics research such as antivirals and convalescent blood products, and 9.5% for diagnostics research. Research funding and bibliometric output were moderately associated (Spearman’s ρ = 0.5232, P = 0.0259), however number of Ebola cases in previous outbreaks and research funding (ρ = 0.1706, P = 0.4985) and Ebola cases in previous outbreaks and research output (ρ = 0.3020, P = 0.0616) were poorly correlated.ConclusionSignificant public and philanthropic funds have been invested in Ebola and Marburg virus research in 2014 and 2015, following the outbreak in West Africa. Long term, strategic vision and leadership are needed to invest in infections with pandemic potential early, including innovative financing measures and open access investment data to promote the development of new therapies and technologies.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Ebola research funding: a systematic analysis, 1997–2015

Fitchett¹,

Lichtman²,

Soyode³

et al. 2016

Journal of Global Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…There are recognised difficulties with any comprehensive analysis of R&D data ( Young et al, 2015 ), and the limitations of this study have been described in detail previously ( Head et al, 2013, 2014b ). An important point to reiterate here is the lack of private sector data.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Information collected on each award included study title and abstract (where available), the lead institution and principal investigator, funder, year of award and total funding awarded. As per previous analyses ( Head et al, 2013 ), and similar to approaches recommended by others ( Young et al, 2015 ), awards originating from an international funder were converted to UK pounds using the mean exchange rate in the year of the award. All awards were adjusted for inflation and reported in 2013 UK pounds.…”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

Mapping pneumonia research: A systematic analysis of UK investments and published outputs 1997–2013

Head¹,

Fitchett²,

Newell³

et al. 2015

EBioMedicine

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundThe burden of pneumonia continues to be substantial, particularly among the poorest in global society. We describe here the trends for UK pneumonia R&D investment and published outputs, and correlate with 2013 global mortality.MethodsData related to awards to UK institutions for pneumonia research from 1997 to 2013 were systematically sourced and categorised by disease area and type of science. Investment was compared to mortality figures in 2010 and 2013 for pneumonia, tuberculosis and influenza. Investment was also compared to publication data.ResultsOf all infectious disease research between 2011 and 2013 (£917.0 million), £28.8 million (3.1%) was for pneumonia. This was an absolute and proportionate increase from previous time periods. Translational pneumonia research (33.3%) received increased funding compared with 1997–2010 where funding was almost entirely preclinical (87.5%, here 30.9%), but high-burden areas such as paediatrics, elderly care and antimicrobial resistance received little investment. Annual investment remains volatile; publication temporal trends show a consistent increase. When comparing investment to global burden with a novel ‘investment by mortality observed’ metric, tuberculosis (£48.36) and influenza (£484.21) receive relatively more funding than pneumonia (£43.08), despite investment for pneumonia greatly increasing in 2013 compared to 2010 (£7.39). Limitations include a lack of private sector data and the need for careful interpretation of the comparisons with burden, plus categorisation is subjective.ConclusionsThere has been a welcome increase for pneumonia funding awarded to UK institutions in 2011–2013 compared with 1997–2010, along with increases for more translational research. Published outputs relating to pneumonia rose steadily from 1997 to 2013. Investment relative to mortality for pneumonia has increased, but it remains low compared to other respiratory infections and clear inequities remain. Analyses that measure investments in pneumonia can provide an insight into funding trends and research gaps.Research in contextPneumonia continues to be a high-burden illness around the globe. This paper shows that although research funding is increasing in the UK (between 1997 and 2013), it remains poorly funded compared to other important respiratory infectious diseases such as tuberculosis and influenza. Publications about pneumonia have been steadily increasing over time, indicating continuing academic and clinical interest in the topic. Though global mortality of pneumonia is declining, it should still be an area of high priority for funders, policymakers and researchers.

show abstract

“…It is challenging to estimate global research and development expenditures and compare those results across countries. The two major issues are obtaining health care data from each country and using a common currency conversion over time (Young et al, 2015). Despite these important challenges, Chakma et al (2014) made a legitimate effort to do just that, sourcing data from global biomedical agencies, governments and statistical bureaus and rendering those data into US dollars for legitimate comparisons.…”

Section: Growth Of Health Expenditure Research In Asia-oceaniamentioning

confidence: 99%