Comparing United States and European Union academic animal programs: Finances.

The Yale Animal Resource Cost and Benchmarking survey, conducted in United States (US) academic animal research/resource centres (ARC), was modified to capture similar information in European Union (EU) (including the non-EU countries Switzerland and the United Kingdom) academic ARCs, who are members of the League of European Research Universities (LERU). Participating institutions came from Denmark, England, Finland, France, Germany, Ireland, Italy, Netherlands, Scotland, Spain and Switzerland. Survey data analysis suggests that (a) per diem rates have similar compositions in LERU and US programs, with >50% of the rates dedicated to recovering salary and fringe, followed by supplies (∼25%), facility costs (∼10%) and other expenses (∼15%); (b) ∼60% of US and LERU programs under-recover mouse care costs; (c) on average, LERU programs have a small positive net-operating balance, while US programs average a large deficit; (d) in LERU programs <50% of institutions fund the animal program deficit, while in US programs almost 100% of such deficits are covered by the institution; and (e) when setting per diem rates, both US and LERU programs rank cost accounting as the most influential factor. Both US and LERU programs are reluctant to raise per diem rates to the extent required to recover costs and, thus, continue to under-recover costs, resulting in the animal program being 'caught in the middle' between the competing financial challenges of investigator 'affordability' and the animal program's fiduciary responsibility to the institution.

Clustering networked funded European research activities through rank-size laws.

This paper treats a well-established public evaluation problem, which is the analysis of the funded research projects. We specifically deal with the collection of the research actions funded by the European Union over the 7th Framework Programme for Research and Technological Development and Horizon 2020. The reference period is 2007-2020. The study is developed through three methodological steps. First, we consider the networked scientific institutions by stating a link between two organizations when they are partners in the same funded project. In doing so, we build yearly complex networks. We compute four nodal centrality measures with relevant, informative content for each of them. Second, we implement a rank-size procedure on each network and each centrality measure by testing four meaningful classes of parametric curves to fit the ranked data. At the end of such a step, we derive the best fit curve and the calibrated parameters. Third, we perform a clustering procedure based on the best-fit curves of the ranked data for identifying regularities and deviations among years of research and scientific institutions. The joint employment of the three methodological approaches allows a clear view of the research activity in Europe in recent years.

Technological Ecosystems in the Health Sector: a Mapping Study of European Research Projects.

The European Union has a substantial investment in research and development and demand side-measures in the health sector in order to promote new initiatives, prevent disease and foster healthy lifestyles. In particular, the European Commission and other European entities have funded research projects focused on the use of technology in the health sector. In this context, health research initiatives have evolved from user-centred monolithic solutions into collaborative partnerships of different stakeholders that gather around different technological platforms. In order to identify the lacks and opportunities in this area, a systematic mapping study was conducted with the aim of identifying and analysing the recent research projects developed in Europe related to technological ecosystems in the health sector. The study covered closed European research projects from 2003 to 2018. This paper aims to extend that systematic mapping study through ongoing research projects. The analysis of these research projects provides an overview of the current trends and identify the lacks and opportunities to define new advances in this research area. Moreover, the comparison between the first mapping study focused on closed projects, and the current study, allows getting an overview of the evolution of technological ecosystems in the health sector.

Primary care workforce development in Europe: An overview of health system responses and stakeholder views.

Better primary care has become a key strategy for reforming health systems to respond effectively to increases in non-communicable diseases and changing population needs, yet the primary care workforce has received very little attention. This article aligns primary care policy and workforce development in European countries. The aim is to provide a comparative overview of the governance of workforce innovation and the views of the main stakeholders. Cross-country comparisons and an explorative case study design are applied. We combine material from different European projects to analyse health system responses to changing primary care workforce needs, transformations in the general practitioner workforce and patient views on workforce changes. The results reveal a lack of alignment between primary care reform policies and workforce policies and high variation in the governance of primary care workforce innovation. Transformations in the general practitioner workforce only partly follow changing population needs; countries vary considerably in supporting and achieving the goals of integration and community orientation. Yet patients who have experienced task shifting in their care express overall positive views on new models. In conclusion, synthesising available evidence from different projects contributes new knowledge on policy levers and reveals an urgent need for health system leadership in developing an integrated people-centred primary care workforce.

The need for harmonisation and innovation of neuropsychological assessment in neurodegenerative dementias in Europe: consensus document of the Joint Program for Neurodegenerative Diseases Working Group.

Cognitive, behavioural, and functional assessment is crucial in longitudinal studies of neurodegenerative dementias (NDD). Central issues, such as the definition of the study population (asymptomatic, at risk, or individuals with dementia), the detection of change/decline, and the assessment of relevant outcomes depend on quantitative measures of cognitive, behavioural, and functional status.Currently, we are far from having available reliable protocols and tools for the assessment of dementias in Europe. The main problems are the heterogeneity of the tools used across different European countries, the lack of standardisation of administration and scoring methods across centres, and the limited information available about the psychometric properties of many tests currently in widespread use. This situation makes it hard to compare results across studies carried out in different centres, thus hampering research progress, in particular towards the contribution to a "big data" common data set.We present here the results of a project funded by the Joint Program for Neurodegenerative Diseases (JPND) and by the Italian Ministry of Health. The project aimed at providing a consensus framework for the harmonisation of assessment tools to be applied to research in neurodegenerative disorders affecting cognition across Europe. A panel of European experts reviewed the current methods of neuropsychological assessment, identified pending issues, and made recommendations for the harmonisation of neuropsychological assessment of neurodegenerative dementias in Europe.A consensus was achieved on the general recommendations to be followed in developing procedures and tools for neuropsychological assessment, with the aim of harmonising tools and procedures to achieve more reliable data on the cognitive-behavioural examination. The results of this study should be considered as a first step to enhancing a common view and practise on NDD assessment across European countries.

Identifying obstacles and ranking common biological control research priorities for Europe to manage most economically important pests in arable, vegetable and perennial crops.

EU agriculture is currently in transition from conventional crop protection to integrated pest management (IPM). Because biocontrol is a key component of IPM, many European countries recently have intensified their national efforts on biocontrol research and innovation (R&I), although such initiatives are often fragmented. The operational outputs of national efforts would benefit from closer collaboration among stakeholders via transnationally coordinated approaches, as most economically important pests are similar across Europe. This paper proposes a common European framework on biocontrol R&I. It identifies generic R&I bottlenecks and needs as well as priorities for three crop types (arable, vegetable and perennial crops). The existing gap between the market offers of biocontrol solutions and the demand of growers, the lengthy and expensive registration process for biocontrol solutions and their varying effectiveness due to variable climatic conditions and site-specific factors across Europe are key obstacles hindering the development and adoption of biocontrol solutions in Europe. Considering arable, vegetable and perennial crops, a dozen common target pests are identified for each type of crop and ranked by order of importance at European level. Such a ranked list indicates numerous topics on which future joint transnational efforts would be justified. © 2016 Society of Chemical Industry.

Shaping science policy in Europe.

The Lisbon Strategy was adopted by the Heads of State and Government of the European Union (EU) in 2000. By moving science into a central position for the development of a European knowledge-based economy and society, its adoption at political level seems to have been a powerful catalyst for the increased involvement of scientists in science policy in the EU. Recognising the need for scientists to act collectively in order to contribute to shape the future of science policy in Europe, a pioneering group of European science organisations leaders and representatives, as well as other scientists, initiated a European, interdisciplinary, inclusive movement leading to the creation of the European Research Council (ERC) to support basic research of the highest quality. Having scientists' campaign for the funding of bottom-up research by the EU Framework Programmes exclusively on scientific grounds, and for an ERC, was a unique event in the recent history of European science policy. For the first time, the scientific community acted collectively and across disciplinary or national boundaries as a political actor for the sake of a better science policy for Europe. As is often the case when first-hand experience is gained through the creation of a new organization, novel forms of collaboration arise. The European biomedical community has recently proposed the creation of a strategic action plan for health research (the European Council of Health Research; EuCHR), provisionally translated at present into a Scientific Panel for Health (SPH) research in Horizon 2020, the EU's research-funding programme for the period 2014-2020. The creation of such Scientific Panel should be viewed as an important contribution by the biomedical community as a major political agreement has been reached on the need for a comprehensive and long-term scientific strategy to accelerate research and facilitate innovation at EU level. It is our belief that describing and analyzing the process leading to the creation of the ERC and SPH (2002-2014) should be widely shared with the research community in general, as this may contribute to the understanding of the evolving relations between scientists and science-policy making.

On a European collaboration to identify organizational models, potential shortcomings and improvement options in out-of-hours primary health care.

UNLABELLED: Abstract Background: Out-of-hours care (OOHC) provision is an increasingly challenging aspect in the delivery of primary health care services. Although many European countries have implemented organizational models for out-of-hours primary care, which has been traditionally delivered by general practitioners, health care providers throughout Europe are still looking to resolve current challenges in OOHC. It is within this context that the European Research Network for Out-of-Hours Primary Health Care (EurOOHnet) was established in 2010 to investigate the provision of out-of-hours care across European countries, which have diverse political and health care systems. In this paper, we report on the EurOOHnet work related to OOHC organizational models, potential shortcomings and improvement options in out-of-hours primary health care. Needs assessment: The EurOOHnet expert working party proposed that models for OOHC should be reviewed to evaluate the availability and accessibility of OOHC for patients while also seeking ways to make the delivery of care more satisfying for service providers. OUTCOMES: To move towards resolution of OOHC challenges in primary care, as the first stage, the EurOOHnet expert working party identified the following key needs: clear and uniform definitions of the different OOHC models between different countries; adequate-ideally transnational-definitions of urgency levels and corresponding data; and educational programmes for nurses and doctors (e.g. in the use of a standardized triage system for OOHC). Finally, the need for a modern system of data transfer between different health care providers in regular care and providers in OOHC to prevent information loss was identified.