Scientific research and innovation response to the COVID-19 pandemic in Peru

Abstract

Background: COVID-19 has shaken countries at all levels, putting public health at risk. Global efforts have allocated funding for the development of research for the development of vaccines, digital tools, epidemiologic, social, and economic studies. Although these efforts have been developed worldwide, not all countries have prioritized the same topics, and may have a different impact on solving problems and containing the spread of COVID-19. Methods: A descriptive study was conducted with secondary data of "Special Projects COVID-19” in order to analyze the prioritization of proposals and projects to Peruvian needs in the face of pandemic. Two calls were made by the Peruvian research council (CONCyTec); the first with five areas and second with seven. The global amounts financed by each call were 342,857 USD (1,200,000 soles) and 700,000 USD (1,750,000 soles), respectively. Results: A total of 1,101 research projects were presented, 600 (54.5%) in the first call. In this call, 176 (29.3%) projects were from the technological development and innovation and 29 were winners (with a global budget of 1,711,907.25 USD /6,077,270.75 soles). In the second call, 120 (23.9%) projects were from the area of Social and economic research and 21 were winners (global budget of 1,284,002.25 USD/558,208.55 soles) (p=0.043). The largest proportion of winning projects in both calls was 12 (41.4%) in Technological developments and innovation, then five (17.2%) each in telehealth and mobile health, and epidemiological and social studies. Across both calls, 214 (55.8%) and 160 (51.9%) projects were of private organizations and universities, respectively. Conclusions: This research shows ~2% of rapid response "Special Projects COVID-19” were financed by the CONCyTec call with over a million dollars of funds. Although the main topics were technological innovation, detection systems, and vaccines, these priorities have not had a global impact on the epidemiological development of the pandemic in Peru.

A bibliometric analysis of 47-years of research on public health in Peru

“…However, it has been shown that there are limitations in the use of English among students and teachers of health sciences, which is a limitation in scientific production, which to some extent may also be a factor that reduces the increase in scientific production [25]. More studies are needed to understand the effects of language on scientific production in Scopus as well as the resources and funding of scientific projects that end up in publication [26]. Our results also show international scientific collaboration, where there are usually formal collaborations in which the institutions or countries sign agreements highlighting the benefits and responsibilities of the study in question; at the same time, there are also informal collaborations, where the scientists involved share all or part of the information, as well as the materials and training necessary to carry out the study [13,14,16].…”

Substance Use in Healthcare Professionals During the COVID-19 Pandemic in Latin America: A Systematic Review and a Call for Reports

“…32 Also, national and international investments in technological innovation has not prioritised substance abuse research in Latin America, even though millions of dollars have been invested in the development of rapid response projects. 4,33,34 As long as health stakeholders, political leaders and clinical practice managers do not highlight substance abuse as part of the scientific priorities in every Latin American country, HCWs will be threatened by substance use without control and prevention measures.…”

“…1 Pandemic containment activities have included increasing public spending, prioritising COVID-19, and strengthening health systems in terms of diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring, and developing research and technological innovation. 2-4…”

“…1 Pandemic containment activities have included increasing public spending, prioritising COVID-19, and strengthening health systems in terms of diagnosis, treatment, and monitoring, and developing research and technological innovation. [2][3][4] Healthcare professionals (HCWs) have been the main actors during the lockdown as the lives of many patients depended on their daily actions and their extreme responsibility for care. 5 The difficulties posed by the COVID-19 lockdown have not only resulted in a poor response with high mortality rates, but they have also influenced HCWs' mental health, with increasing levels of anxiety, depression, fear and stress.…”

Reply to the letter: The evidence of Bayesian A/B testing in the contrast of clinical events by COVID-19

“…Given that the p-value is not sufficient for clinical interpretation 4 , certain factors (such as effect size and sample size) can undermine the conclusions, resulting in large amounts of bias. One of our limitations was the sample size since in the context of confinement and social distancing it has been difficult for us to voluntarily enroll patients in the study.…”