The recovery experience of people who were sex trafficked: the thwarted journey towards goal pursuit.

BACKGROUND: In 2010, a shelter programme was established in the Netherlands to provide social and health services for trafficked people. This article describes how service users in this programme conceptualized and experienced their own process of recovery. METHODS: In 2012, 14 people of non-Dutch nationality who had been trafficked for the purpose of sexual exploitation were interviewed at all three shelters of the programme. Data analysis followed a grounded theory approach. RESULTS: Participants felt a strong need to turn over a new leaf in life, leaving negative experiences of the past behind and moving towards a life with a job, a family and friends. In contrast with their willingness to work towards realizing that future, they experienced a lack of autonomy and a thwarted sense of agency in redressing their present situation. Together with the ostracized nature of their place in Dutch society this left them 'in limbo': a feeling of standing still, while wanting to move forward. This led participants to find it more difficult to deal with problems related to their pasts and futures. They particularly appreciated Dutch language training, vocational skills training and opportunities for volunteer work. CONCLUSIONS: Participants exhibited a strong desire to fulfil the basic psychological needs of competence, relatedness and autonomy, but were thwarted in pursuing these goals. Seemingly against all odds, while faced with several external regulators that limited their agency to change their situation, participants found ways to pursue these goals, through their enthusiasm for activities that helped them get closer to their envisioned futures (language and skills training and volunteer work). Identifying pathways toward attaining their goals allowed them to hope for a better future. That hope and pursuing their goals helped them to cope with the problems of their past and their worries about the future. Therefore, to facilitate service users' recovery in a post-trafficking setting, there is a need to provide them with opportunities to hope for, pursue and attain their personal goals within the structural boundaries of their situation. A future-orientated, strengths-based approach towards service provision and responsive and supportive environments help to do this.

The Critical Incident Technique: Method or Methodology?

The critical incident technique (CIT) is a qualitative research tool that is frequently used in health services research to explore what helps or hinders in providing good quality care or achieving satisfaction with care provision. However, confusion currently exists on the nature of the CIT: Is it a method for data collection and analysis or a methodology? In this article, I explain why this distinction is important and I argue that the CIT is a methodology (and not a method) for the following reasons: Key methodological dimensions are described for the CIT; it has a clear focus; studies that apply this technique make use of various methods for data collection and analysis; it describes, explains, evaluates, and justifies the use of a specific format for those methods; it implies philosophical and practical assumptions; and studies that use the CIT cannot easily make use of additional methodologies simultaneously.

Supporting ALL victims of violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation: guidance for health providers.

Smaller groups of victims of violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation - such as male victims of intimate partner violence (IPV), victims of elder abuse, victims of abuse by carers, victims of parent abuse, victims of human trafficking, girls and boys below 18 years engaging in sex work, victims of sexual exploitation by gangs or groups and victims of honour based violence (such as forced marriages and female genital mutilation) - are often in contact with the health care system without being identified as such and frequently do not receive appropriate treatment. To address this problem, two things need to happen: 1) that ALL groups of victims of violence, abuse, neglect or exploitation are explicitly listed in policies and protocols, and 2) that both the similarities as well as the differences between the groups with regard to identification, support and referral - described in this article - are explained, so that health providers are appropriately supported in this important function.

The 10 largest public and philanthropic funders of health research in the world: what they fund and how they distribute their funds.

BACKGROUND: Little is known about who the main public and philanthropic funders of health research are globally, what they fund and how they decide what gets funded. This study aims to identify the 10 largest public and philanthropic health research funding organizations in the world, to report on what they fund, and on how they distribute their funds. METHODS: The world's key health research funding organizations were identified through a search strategy aimed at identifying different types of funding organizations. Organizations were ranked by their reported total annual health research expenditures. For the 10 largest funding organizations, data were collected on (1) funding amounts allocated towards 20 health areas, and (2) schemes employed for distributing funding (intramural/extramural, project/'people'/organizational and targeted/untargeted funding). Data collection consisted of a review of reports and websites and interviews with representatives of funding organizations. Data collection was challenging; data were often not reported or reported using different classification systems. RESULTS: Overall, 55 key health research funding organizations were identified. The 10 largest funding organizations together funded research for $37.1 billion, constituting 40% of all public and philanthropic health research spending globally. The largest funder was the United States National Institutes of Health ($26.1 billion), followed by the European Commission ($3.7 billion), and the United Kingdom Medical Research Council ($1.3 billion). The largest philanthropic funder was the Wellcome Trust ($909.1 million), the largest funder of health research through official development assistance was USAID ($186.4 million), and the largest multilateral funder was the World Health Organization ($135.0 million). Funding distribution mechanisms and funding patterns varied substantially between the 10 largest funders. CONCLUSIONS: There is a need for increased transparency about who the main funders of health research are globally, what they fund and how they decide on what gets funded, and for improving the evidence base for various funding models. Data on organizations' funding patterns and funding distribution mechanisms are often not available, and when they are, they are reported using different classification systems. To start increasing transparency in health research funding, we have established www.healthresearchfunders.org that lists health research funding organizations worldwide and their health research expenditures.

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

Better estimates of changes in the level and structure of national, regional, and global expenditures on health research and development (R&D) are needed as an important source of information for advancing countries' health research policies. However, such estimates are difficult to compile and comparison between countries needs careful calibration. We outline the steps that need to be taken to make reliable estimates of trends in countries' expenditures on health R&D, describe that an ideal approach would involve the use of international sets of deflators and exchange rates that are specific to health R&D activities, and explain which methods should be used given the current absence of such health R&D-specific deflators and exchange rates. Finally, we describe what should be the way forward in improving our ability to make reliable estimates of trends in countries' health R&D expenditures.

Mapping of available health research and development data: what's there, what's missing, and what role is there for a global observatory?

The need to align investments in health research and development (R&D) with public health demands is one of the most pressing global public health challenges. We aim to provide a comprehensive description of available data sources, propose a set of indicators for monitoring the global landscape of health R&D, and present a sample of country indicators on research inputs (investments), processes (clinical trials), and outputs (publications), based on data from international databases. Total global investments in health R&D (both public and private sector) in 2009 reached US$240 billion. Of the US$214 billion invested in high-income countries, 60% of health R&D investments came from the business sector, 30% from the public sector, and about 10% from other sources (including private non-profit organisations). Only about 1% of all health R&D investments were allocated to neglected diseases in 2010. Diseases of relevance to high-income countries were investigated in clinical trials seven-to-eight-times more often than were diseases whose burden lies mainly in low-income and middle-income countries. This report confirms that substantial gaps in the global landscape of health R&D remain, especially for and in low-income and middle-income countries. Too few investments are targeted towards the health needs of these countries. Better data are needed to improve priority setting and coordination for health R&D, ultimately to ensure that resources are allocated to diseases and regions where they are needed the most. The establishment of a global observatory on health R&D, which is being discussed at WHO, could address the absence of a comprehensive and sustainable mechanism for regular global monitoring of health R&D.

Use of data from registered clinical trials to identify gaps in health research and development.

OBJECTIVE: To explore what can be learnt about the current composition of the "global landscape" of health research and development (R&D) from data on the World Health Organization's International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). METHODS: A random 5% sample of the records of clinical trials that were registered as interventional and actively recruiting was taken from the ICTRP database. FINDINGS: Overall, 2381 records of trials were investigated. Analysis of these records indicated that, for every million disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) caused by communicable, maternal, perinatal and nutritional conditions, by noncommunicable diseases, or by injuries, the ICTRP database contained an estimated 7.4, 52.4 and 6.0 trials in which these causes of burden of disease were being investigated, respectively. For every million DALYs in high-income, upper-middle-income, lower-middle-income and low-income countries, an estimated 292.7, 13.4, 3.0 and 0.8 registered trials, respectively, were recruiting in such countries. CONCLUSION: The ICTRP constitutes a valuable resource for assessing the global distribution of clinical trials and for informing policy development for health R&D. Populations in lower-income countries receive much less attention, in terms of clinical trial research, than populations in higher-income countries.

Mapping global health research investments, time for new thinking--a Babel Fish for research data.

Today we have an incomplete picture of how much the world is spending on health and disease-related research and development (R&D). As such it is difficult to align, or even begin to coordinate, health R&D investments with international public health priorities. Current efforts to track and map global health research investments are complex, resource-intensive, and caveat-laden. An ideal situation would be for all research funding to be classified using a set of common standards and definitions. However, the adoption of such a standard by everyone is not a realistic, pragmatic or even necessary goal. It is time for new thinking informed by the innovations in automated online translation - e.g. Yahoo's Babel Fish. We propose a feasibility study to develop a system that can translate and map the diverse research classification systems into a common standard, allowing the targeting of scarce research investments to where they are needed most.

Aid alignment for global health research: the role of HIROs.

The lack of a mechanism that aligns financial flows for global health research towards public health priorities limits the impact of health research on health and health equity. Collaborative groups of health research funders appear to be particularly well situated to ameliorate this situation and to initiate discussion on aid alignment for global health research. One such group is the Heads of International Research Organizations (HIROs), which brings together a large number of major government and philanthropic funders of biomedical research. Surprisingly, there is hardly any information publicly available on HIROs' objectives, or on how it aims to achieve more harmonization in the field of research for health. Greater transparency on HIROs' objectives and on its current efforts towards addressing the gap between global health research needs and investments would be desirable, given the enormous potential benefits of more coordination by this group.

A checklist for health research priority setting: nine common themes of good practice.

Health research priority setting processes assist researchers and policymakers in effectively targeting research that has the greatest potential public health benefit. Many different approaches to health research prioritization exist, but there is no agreement on what might constitute best practice. Moreover, because of the many different contexts for which priorities can be set, attempting to produce one best practice is in fact not appropriate, as the optimal approach varies per exercise. Therefore, following a literature review and an analysis of health research priority setting exercises that were organized or coordinated by the World Health Organization since 2005, we propose a checklist for health research priority setting that allows for informed choices on different approaches and outlines nine common themes of good practice. It is intended to provide generic assistance for planning health research prioritization processes. The checklist explains what needs to be clarified in order to establish the context for which priorities are set; it reviews available approaches to health research priority setting; it offers discussions on stakeholder participation and information gathering; it sets out options for use of criteria and different methods for deciding upon priorities; and it emphasizes the importance of well-planned implementation, evaluation and transparency.

How robust are the deviations in haptic parallelity?

Several studies have shown that physically parallel bars do not feel parallel and vice versa. The most plausible cause of this deviation is the biasing influence of an egocentric reference frame. The aim of the present study was to assess the strength of this egocentric contribution. The deviations from veridicality were measured in six experiments where subjects were presented with either haptic or visual information about parallelity or their deviations. It was found that even direct error feedback (either haptically or visually) did not even nearly result in veridical performance. The improvements found were attributed to a shift in focus towards a more allocentric reference frame, possibly reflecting the same mechanisms as found in delay and noninformative vision studies. We conclude that the illusionary percept of haptic parallelity is rather robust and is indeed caused by a strong reliance on an egocentric reference frame.

Trends in global clinical trial registration: an analysis of numbers of registered clinical trials in different parts of the world from 2004 to 2013.

OBJECTIVES: To analyse developments (and their causes) in the number and proportion of clinical trials that were registered in different parts of the world after the International Committee of Medical Journal Editors (ICMJE) announced in 2004 that it would require registration of clinical trials as a condition for publication. SETTING: The International Clinical Trials Registry Platform (ICTRP). DESIGN: The ICTRP database was searched for all clinical trials that were registered up to 31 December 2013. RESULTS: The ICTRP database contained data on 186,523 interventional clinical trials. The annual number of registered clinical trials increased from 3294 in 2004 to 23,384 in 2013. Relative to the number of clinical trial research publications, the global number of registered clinical trials increased fivefold between 2004 and 2013, rising particularly strongly between 2004 and 2005. In certain regions, especially Asia, the annual number of registered trials increased more gradually and continued to increase up to 2013. In India and Japan, two countries with marked but more gradual increases, these increases only happened after several local measures were implemented that encouraged and enforced registration. In most regions, there was a trend toward trials being registered at local registries. CONCLUSIONS: Clinical trial registration has greatly improved transparency in clinical trial research. However, these improvements have not taken place equally in all parts of the world. Achieving compliance with registration requires a coalescence of global and local measures, and remains a key challenge in many countries. Poor quality of registered trial data and the inaccessibility of trial protocols, results and participant-level data further undermine the potential benefits of clinical trial registration. National and regional registries and the ICTRP have played a leading role in achieving the successes of trial registration to date and should be supported in addressing these challenges in the future.