Global funding for cancer research between 2016 and 2020: a content analysis of public and philanthropic investments.

BACKGROUND: Cancer is a leading cause of disease burden globally, with more than 19·3 million cases and 10 million deaths recorded in 2020. Research is crucial to understanding the determinants of cancer and the effects of interventions, and to improving outcomes. We aimed to analyse global patterns of public and philanthropic investment in cancer research. METHODS: In this content analysis, we searched the UberResearch Dimensions database and Cancer Research UK data for human cancer research funding awards from public and philanthropic funders between Jan 1, 2016, and Dec 31, 2020. Included award types were project and programme grants, fellowships, pump priming, and pilot projects. Awards focused on operational delivery of cancer care were excluded. Awards were categorised by cancer type, cross-cutting research theme, and research phase. Funding amount was compared with global burden of specific cancers, measured by disability-adjusted life-years, years lived with disability, and mortality using data from the Global Burden of Disease study. FINDINGS: We identified 66 388 awards with total investment of about US$24·5 billion in 2016-20. Investment decreased year-on-year, with the largest drop observed between 2019 and 2020. Pre-clinical research received 73·5% of the funding across the 5 years ($18 billion), phase 1-4 clinical trials received 7·4% ($1·8 billion), public health research received 9·4% ($2·3 billion), and cross-disciplinary research received 5·0% ($1·2 billion). General cancer research received the largest investment ($7·1 billion, 29·2% of the total funding). The most highly funded cancer types were breast cancer ($2·7 billion [11·2%]), haematological cancer ($2·3 billion [9·4%]), and brain cancer ($1·3 billion [5·5%]). Analysis by cross-cutting theme revealed that 41·2% of investment ($9·6 billion) went to cancer biology research, 19·6% ($4·6 billion) to drug treatment research, and 12·1% ($2·8 billion) to immuno-oncology. 1·4% of the total funding ($0·3 billion) was spent on surgery research, 2·8% ($0·7 billion) was spent on radiotherapy research, and 0·5% ($0·1 billion) was spent on global health studies. INTERPRETATION: Cancer research funding must be aligned with the global burden of cancer with more equitable funding for cancer research in low-income and middle-income countries (which account for 80% of cancer burden), both to support research relevant to these settings, and build research capacity within these countries. There is an urgent need to prioritise investment in surgery and radiotherapy research given their primacy in the treatment of many solid tumours. FUNDING: None.

The prevalence of previous self-harm amongst self-poisoning patients in Sri Lanka.

BACKGROUND: One of the most important components of suicide prevention strategies is to target people who repeat self-harm as they are a high risk group. However, there is some evidence that the incidence of repeat self-harm is lower in Asia than in the West. The objective of this study was to investigate the prevalence of previous self-harm among a consecutive series of self-harm patients presenting to hospitals in rural Sri Lanka. METHOD: Six hundred and ninety-eight self-poisoning patients presenting to medical wards at two hospitals in Sri Lanka were interviewed about their previous episodes of self-harm. RESULTS: Sixty-one (8.7%, 95% CI 6.7-11%) patients reported at least one previous episode of self-harm [37 (10.7%) male, 24 (6.8%) female]; only 19 (2.7%, 95% CI 1.6-4.2%) patients had made more than one previous attempt. CONCLUSION: The low prevalence of previous self-harm is consistent with previous Asian research and is considerably lower than that seen in the West. Explanations for these low levels of repeat self-harm require investigation. Our data indicate that a focus on the aftercare of those who attempt suicide in Sri Lanka may have a smaller impact on suicide incidence than may be possible in the West.

Cost to government health-care services of treating acute self-poisonings in a rural district in Sri Lanka.

OBJECTIVE: To estimate the direct financial costs to the Sri Lanka Ministry of Health of treating patients after self-poisoning, particularly from pesticides, in a single district. METHODS: Data on staff, drug, laboratory and other inputs for each patient admitted for self-poisoning were prospectively collected over a one-month period from one general hospital (2005) and five peripheral hospitals (2006) in the Anuradhapura district. Data on transfers to secondary- and tertiary-level facilities were obtained for a 6-month period from 30 peripheral hospitals. The cost of the inputs in United States dollars (US$), using 2005 figures, was derived from hospital accounts. FINDINGS: The average total cost of treating a self-poisoned patient at the general hospital was US$ 31.83, with ward staff input and drugs being the highest expenditure category and only US$ 0.19 of this sum related to capital and maintenance costs. The average total cost of treatment was highest for self-poisoning with pesticides (US$ 49.12). The patients placed in the intensive care unit, who comprised 5% of the total, took up 75% of the overall treatment cost for all self-poisoned patients at the general hospital. The average total cost of treating self-poisoned patients at peripheral hospitals was US$ 3.33. The average patient cost per transfer was US$ 14.03. In 2006, the total cost of treating self-poisoned patients in the Anuradhapura district amounted to US$ 76,599, of which US$ 53,834 were comprised of pesticide self-poisonings. Based on the total treatment cost per self-poisoned patient estimated in this study, the cost of treating self-poisoned patients in all of Sri Lanka in 2004 was estimated at US$ 866,304. CONCLUSION: The cost of treating pesticide self-poisonings may be reduced by promoting the use of less toxic pesticides and possibly by improving case management in primary care hospitals. Additional research is needed to assess if increasing infrastructure and staff at peripheral hospitals could reduce the overall cost to the government, optimize case management and reduce pressure on secondary services.