What did the Go4Health policy research project contribute to the policy discourse on the sustainable development goals? A reflexive review

Te, Vannarath; Floden, Nadia; Hussain, Sameera; Brolan, Claire E; Hill, Peter S

doi:10.1186/s12992-018-0367-4

Cited by 3 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 46 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…The article is silent on the human rights implications of international commercial trade in health services, a topic that has raised concerns by several UN Special Rapporteurs on the right to health [40]. It does take a cautious stance, however, arguing for limited experimentation with health services trade; and presages debates over the role of the private sector (in financing, provision, or both) in pursuit of the new WHO (and broader UN Sustainable Development Goal) imperative to achieve universal health coverage, a topic well covered by other contributions to this journal [41–43].…”

Section: Collected Articles From Globalization and Health (2006–2018)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Trade, investment and public health: compiling the evidence, assembling the arguments

Labonté

2019

Global Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Trade has long been an axiomatic characteristic of globalization, although international rules governing trade are of more recent vintage. Notably in the post-World War II period, an ever increasing number of countries began negotiating treaties to reduce, first, tariff barriers and, later, non-tariff barriers (government measures of any sort) that could impede the cross-border flow of goods. The rationale, in part, was that countries that became more entwined economically would be less likely to go to war with each other. It wouldn’t be in their own economic interests to do so, or at least that of the firms based within their borders but engaged in transnational trade and dependent upon global supply chains. At first primarily an undertaking of developed (high-income) countries, developing (low and middle-income countries) slowly enjoined in what, in 1995, became the World Trade Organization. The WTO locked in scheduled declines in tariffs (border taxes), albeit with lesser obligations on developing country members (a problematic nomenclature given the vast geographic, economic, and development differences between such countries, but which nonetheless persists within the WTO). Importantly, a slew of new agreements that coincided with the establishment of the WTO also sought to liberalize trade in services (not just goods) (The General Agreement on Trade in Services), create new rules for agricultural trade (Agreement on Agriculture), expand intellectual property rights protections (The Agreement on Trade-Related Aspects of Intellectual Property Rights), limit trade-distorting government subsidies (Agreement on Subsidies and Countervailing Measures), and ensure that government food, health, or environmental regulations would not pose an unnecessary barrier to trade (the Technical Barriers to Trade and the Sanitary and Phytosanitary Measures Agreements). Outside of the WTO system, bilateral or regional investment treaties granting special rights to foreign investors to sue governments for actions perceived to affect the value of their investment (such as direct expropriation or passage of new laws and regulations considered ‘tantamount to expropriation’) similarly exploded in number, dispute frequency, and the size of monetary claims. The breadth and depth of these post-1995 Agreements meant that few areas of general public health concern are potentially untouched.

show abstract

Section: Collected Articles From Globalization and Health (2006–2018)mentioning

confidence: 99%

Trade, investment and public health: compiling the evidence, assembling the arguments

Labonté

2019

Global Health

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…On the other hand, if funding bodies have a responsibility in collecting and making data about funded programmes available, the research community should systematically collect information about the availability of data from funding bodies and other sources, as advances of research into FAs depend also on relying on more precise, robust and diversified datasets than those available in citation indexes. Diverse datasets imply also diversifying methodologies and several studies mentioned in this review use less common techniques to complement traditional citation-based analysis, such as content-analysis (Slaughter and Leslie, 1997;An, Jeon, Jones et al, 2017;Te, Floden, Hussain, Brolan and Hill, 2018) or network analysis and other forms of visualization (Boyack and Börner, 2003). From this point of view, the investigative potential of FAs is still high and full of creative opportunities for research.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…It remains to be determined whether research funders expect results as citations or have different expectations about the impact of the research they support. Te, Floden, Hussain, Brolan and Hill (2018) look at the research output of the project Go4Health, cofunded by the European Commission's Seventh Framework Programme and Australia's National Health and Medical Research Council. All documents published within the project were analysed from a qualitative (content analysis) and quantitative point of view (citation analysis), concluding that the analysis showed the contribution of funded programmatic research to the global health discourse.…”

Section: Institutional Scientific Impactmentioning

confidence: 99%

Funding acknowledgements in scientific publications: A literature review

Álvarez-Bornstein

Montesi

2020

Research Evaluation

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

The topic of acknowledgements has produced abundant research since the 1970s, though, as previous studies point out, the value of acknowledgements has not yet been demonstrated and further research is limited by lack of conceptualization. This study focuses on funding acknowledgements (FAs), considering that funding represents an important input in the scientific process. In this context, 183 scientific publications retrieved from Scopus from the 1970s until June 2020 were analyzed, with the aim of systematizing conceptually this body of research and contributing to a theory of acknowledgements. Results are summarized into the following main themes: the meaning of FAs; data sources for acknowledgements; the process of funding; association of funding with productivity, impact, and collaboration; and other aspects affected by funding. The literature reviewed shows that a theory of acknowledgements based on the reward triangle, as in previous studies, is unable to capture the extreme complexity of the scientific activity affecting and being affected by FAs. Funding bodies appear as clear and influential actors in the scientific communication system, making important decisions on the research that is supported, and influencing the type of knowledge produced. Funding agencies hold a responsibility regarding the data that they may collect on their programs, as well as the normalization policies they need to develop so that funded authors can reference with less ambiguity the financial source of their projects. Finally, the need to assess the impact of research funding beyond the scientific community that is, the societal impact, is also addressed.

show abstract

“…Metrics from SciVal used for the THOR 100 papers included: Number of Citations. Citations per Publication: average number of citations received per publication. Cited Publications (%): percentage of publications that have received at least one citation. Field Weighted Citation Impact (FWCI): differences in citation accrual over time, differences in citation rates for different document types, and subject‐specific differences in citation frequencies overall, with a score of 1.0 as its reference standard 6,7 Outputs in Top Citation Percentiles (5%, 10%, and 25%): publications that have reached the top 5, 10, and 25 percentiles of citations received when compared to similar publications in Scopus. …”

Section: Methodsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The publication impact of the first 100 THOR Network publications by bibliometric and social network analyses

Woolley

Stubbs

Sprague³

et al. 2022

Transfusion

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background A specialized international multidisciplinary group of investigators wanted to determine the performance and impact of publications presented at an annual conference over a 6 year period. Specifically, the group wanted to know if the influence of the conference publications extended beyond conference publication authors and attendees. Bibliometric methods and network analyses were used to evaluate the performance and impact of 100 peer‐reviewed publications presented at the Trauma Hemostasis and Oxygenation Research (THOR) Network Remote Damage Control Resuscitation (RCDR) Symposia from 2012 to 2017 (published 2013–2018). Further analysis was performed on the affiliations of conference attendees who attended from the years of 2012 to 2017. Study Design and Methods This project used normative and relative bibliometric measures and social network analysis to evaluate the performance and impact of 100 peer‐reviewed publications presented at the Trauma Hemostasis and Oxygenation Research (THOR) Network RDCR Symposia from 2012 to 2017. Publication and citation data were from Elsevier Scopus, a bibliographic citation database. Metrics from Elsevier SciVal were selected for the project to normalize for group size, year of publication, and document type. A six‐year period of publications presented at the Symposia, published from 2013 to 2018, was selected for analysis. The publication and citation data were further analyzed using Elsevier SciVal and the iCite database from the National Institutes of Health Office of Portfolio Analysis. Sci2, VOSviewer, and Gephi were used for social network analyses and visualization. Results The 100 publications presented at the Trauma Hemostasis and Oxygenation Research (THOR) Network Remote Damage Control Resuscitation (RCDR) Symposia from 2012 to 2017 demonstrate reach and influence beyond the authors of the THOR publications or the THOR attendees. Citations to the THOR publications were published in 10 languages and 313 unique journals, with author affiliations from 62 countries. Citation metrics for the THOR publications exceed global averages with 65% of the THOR publications being in the 25% citation percentiles. When benchmarking the THOR publications using six homogenous comparator groups, the THOR publications demonstrate higher citation metrics than any of the comparator groups with more citations per publication, a higher average of cited publications, higher FWCI and outputs in the top citation percentiles among the six groups. The Office of Portfolio Analysis (OPA) iCite database was used to calculate potential to translate for the THOR publications with 57 of the THOR publications cited by clinical articles with an average approximate potential to translate score of 65.3%. Conclusions The value of international groups with sharing of research and knowledge are instrumental in enhancing the uptake for best practices for in medicine and treatment of hemorrhagic shock resuscitation. The use of bibliometric methods and network analyses, along with benchmar...

show abstract

What did the Go4Health policy research project contribute to the policy discourse on the sustainable development goals? A reflexive review

Cited by 3 publications

References 46 publications

Trade, investment and public health: compiling the evidence, assembling the arguments

Trade, investment and public health: compiling the evidence, assembling the arguments

Funding acknowledgements in scientific publications: A literature review

The publication impact of the first 100 THOR Network publications by bibliometric and social network analyses

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About