Mental Health Agency Officials' Perceived Priorities for Youth Mental Health and Factors That Influence Priorities.

OBJECTIVE: This study aimed to characterize the perceived priorities of state and county policy makers for youth mental health services and the factors that influence those priorities. METHODS: Mental health agency officials (N=338; N=221 state officials, N=117 county officials) representing 49 states completed a Web-based survey in 2019-2020. On 5-point scales, respondents rated the extent to which 15 issues were priorities for their agency in providing youth mental health services and the extent to which nine factors influenced those priorities. RESULTS: Suicide was identified as the highest priority (mean±SD rating=4.38±0.94), followed by adverse childhood experiences and childhood trauma and then increasing access to evidence-based treatments. Budget issues (mean=4.27±0.92) and state legislative priorities (mean=4.01±0.99) were perceived as having the greatest influence on setting priorities. CONCLUSIONS: These findings provide insights into youth mental health policy priorities and can be used to guide implementation and dissemination strategies for research and program development within state and county systems.

Politicizing science funding undermines public trust in science, academic freedom, and the unbiased generation of knowledge.

This commentary documents how federal funding agencies are changing the criteria by which they distribute taxpayer money intended for scientific research. Increasingly, STEMM (Science, Technology, Engineering, Mathematics, and Medicine) funding agencies are requiring applicants for funding to include a plan to advance DEI ("Diversity, Equity, and Inclusion") in their proposals and to dedicate a part of the research budget to its implementation. These mandates undermine the academic freedom of researchers and the unbiased generation of knowledge needed for a well-functioning democracy. Maintaining excellence in science is fundamental to the continuation of the U.S. as a global economic leader. Science provides a basis for solving important global challenges such as security, energy, climate, and health. Diverting funding from science into activities unrelated to the production of knowledge undermines science's ability to serve humankind. When funding agencies politicize science by using their power to further a particular ideological agenda, they contribute to public mistrust in science. Hijacking science funding to promote DEI is thus a threat to our society.

Project-Based Public-Private Collaborations.

Project-based collaborations between a single academic group and a single pharmaceutical company arguably are the most frequent form of public-private partnership in preclinical research and development of new drugs. This chapter discusses the benefits of such collaborations for both sides and potential challenges that can arise before and during the conduct of a project. This is largely based on a survey of expectations and experience by 134 academic investigators with a history of engagement in a project-based collaboration with a pharmaceutical company as well as unstructured experience directly, and learned through discussions with colleagues, from the authors. Obviously, a key benefit for both sides is achieving goals that neither could easily achieve by itself. Scientific discovery, and publications, may be a shared benefit, while for academics, funding and access to compounds, and for industry, access to assay technology and reputational factors may be important. Major hurdles can be freedom to publish and assignment of intellectual property rights. On pragmatic grounds, reaching a contract can be cumbersome, which is largely attributable to the legal expectations and needs of both parties. However, overall satisfaction with project-based collaborations appears very high for academic investigators.

What public health challenges and unmet medical needs would benefit from interdisciplinary collaboration in the EU? A survey and multi-stakeholder debate.

In the past decade, significant European calls for research proposals have supported translational collaborative research on non-communicable and infectious diseases within the biomedical life sciences by bringing together interdisciplinary and multinational consortia. This research has advanced our understanding of disease pathophysiology, marking considerable scientific progress. Yet, it is crucial to retrospectively evaluate these efforts' societal impact. Research proposals should be thoughtfully designed to ensure that the research findings can be effectively translated into actionable policies. In addition, the choice of scientific methods plays a pivotal role in shaping the societal impact of research discoveries. Understanding the factors responsible for current unmet public health issues and medical needs is crucial for crafting innovative strategies for research policy interventions. A multistakeholder survey and a roundtable helped identify potential needs for consideration in the EU research and policy agenda. Based on survey findings, mental health disorders, metabolic syndrome, cancer, antimicrobial resistance, environmental pollution, and cardiovascular diseases were considered the public health challenges deserving prioritisation. In addition, early diagnosis, primary prevention, the impact of environmental pollution on disease onset and personalised medicine approaches were the most selected unmet medical needs. Survey findings enabled the formulation of some research-policies interventions (RPIs), which were further discussed during a multistakeholder online roundtable. The discussion underscored recent EU-level activities aligned with the survey-derived RPIs and facilitated an exchange of perspectives on public health and biomedical research topics ripe for interdisciplinary collaboration and warranting attention within the EU's research and policy agenda. Actionable recommendations aimed at facilitating the translation of knowledge into transformative, science-based policies are also provided.

Promoting Data Sharing: The Moral Obligations of Public Funding Agencies.

Sharing research data has great potential to benefit science and society. However, data sharing is still not common practice. Since public research funding agencies have a particular impact on research and researchers, the question arises: Are public funding agencies morally obligated to promote data sharing? We argue from a research ethics perspective that public funding agencies have several pro tanto obligations requiring them to promote data sharing. However, there are also pro tanto obligations that speak against promoting data sharing in general as well as with regard to particular instruments of such promotion. We examine and weigh these obligations and conclude that all things considered funders ought to promote the sharing of data. Even the instrument of mandatory data sharing policies can be justified under certain conditions.

Replication studies in the Netherlands: Lessons learned and recommendations for funders, publishers and editors, and universities.

Drawing on our experiences conducting replications we describe the lessons we learned about replication studies and formulate recommendations for researchers, policy makers, and funders about the role of replication in science and how it should be supported and funded. We first identify a variety of benefits of doing replication studies. Next, we argue that it is often necessary to improve aspects of the original study, even if that means deviating from the original protocol. Thirdly, we argue that replication studies highlight the importance of and need for more transparency of the research process, but also make clear how difficult that is. Fourthly, we underline that it is worth trying out replication in the humanities. We finish by formulating recommendations regarding reproduction and replication research, aimed specifically at funders, editors and publishers, and universities and other research institutes.

Comparative morphology at a crossroads.

Morphology has been the fundamental and most important source of information in biology. We strongly believe that in the current molecular era of biology, comparative morphology still has an important role to play in understanding life on Earth and ecosystem functioning, bridging the knowledge gap between evolution, systematics, and ecology.

Evaluating Research Activity and NIH-Funding Among Academic Ophthalmologists Using Relative Citation Ratio.

PURPOSE: The objective of this study was to evaluate the relationship between research activity and National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding status of the United States (US) academic ophthalmologists. METHODS: A retrospective cross-sectional analysis of bibliometric data was conducted. The NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Reports (rePORTER) website was utilized to identify ophthalmology departments in the US that received NIH funding. Affiliated faculty from these institutions were then identified using NIH rePORTER and institutional websites. H-index was calculated using the Scopus database, and the NIH iCite tool was used to determine the Relative Citation Ratio (RCR). The h-index and w-RCR quantified research productivity, while m-RCR measured research impact. RESULTS: Data on 2688 faculty members from 66 departments we re identified, of which 21% were NIH-funded. Faculty members who received NIH-funding had significantly greater research productivity and impact as measured by h-index (32.5 vs 16.6; p < .001), m-RCR (2.2 vs 1.6; p < .001), and w-RCR (147.2 vs 70.1; p < .001) than their non-funded peers. When stratified by academic rank, NIH-funded faculty still had significantly higher h-index (16.1 vs 7.9; p < .001), m-RCR (2.2 vs 1.4; p < .001), and w-RCR (63.2 vs 61.8; p < .001) than non-funded peers. A similar trend was observed among non-tenured faculty members. CONCLUSION: NIH funding is associated with higher research productivity and impact among US academic ophthalmologists as measured by h-index and RCR, which suggests that NIH funding may be a critical factor in enhancing scholarly contributions of ophthalmologists.  These findings underscore the importance of continued investment in NIH funding to foster high-impact research within the field of ophthalmology.

The impact of state Medicaid coverage of abortion on people accessing care in three states.

CONTEXT: Medicaid is a major funder of reproductive health services, including family planning and pregnancy-related care, especially for people with limited income and people of color. Federal Medicaid funds cannot be used for abortion however 16 states allow state Medicaid funds to pay for abortion. In recent years, Illinois and Maine implemented, and West Virginia discontinued, state Medicaid coverage of abortion. METHODOLOGY: With retrospective procedure- and patient-level data obtained from clinics in these three states, we used an interrupted time series design, multivariable regression models, and descriptive statistics to assess changes in procedure volume and patients' share of total procedure price (patient price). RESULTS: In Maine and Illinois, implementing state Medicaid coverage of abortion contributed to an immediate overall increase in abortion access (as seen by a rise in monthly procedure volume at the time of the policy's implementation), a decrease in patient price (by 36% in Maine and 44% in Illinois) after policy implementation as compared to pre-implementation, and overall improved access among people of color. Conversely, when West Virginia discontinued coverage, access to care decreased, patient price increased by 130%, and the share of abortion procedures among people of color decreased. CONCLUSIONS: In the fragmented abortion access landscape of the post-Roe era, our study provides new evidence that financial assistance offered through state Medicaid policies that cover abortion may be most helpful to those facing traditional structural inequities to access, while discontinuation of Medicaid coverage of abortion further burdens those already economically marginalized.

Impact of COVID-19 on the neglected tropical diseases: a scoping review.

BACKGROUND: This study investigates the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the prevalence, management, and control of the neglected tropical diseases (NTDs) highlighting the current or prospective impact of COVID-19 on research and development funding for, and execution of, NTD programmes. This review was conducted to determine if, and how, NTDs were affected by COVID-19, and whether those effects will delay the elimination goals of the Sustainable Development goals. METHODS: Using open-source available data from policy and documentation from official websites of the relevant stakeholders including but not limited to World Health Organization (WHO) documents and policies, government foreign aid documents, and the Policy Cures G-Finder reports, this scoping review explored ongoing challenges to supporting research and development (R&D) for the NTDs and in maintaining NTD control programs; examined the constraints posed for NTD management by the pandemic from disruptions to healthcare services, reduction of finance and explored the potential long-term implications and consequences for those poorer, neglected populations in low and middle income-countries (LMICs). This was done by a scoping review literature search, publications were subject to an initial practical screening step to ensure the most relevant publications were selected for full screening, with the focus on scoping the designated topic of the impact of COVID-19 on NTDs. We further undertook an evaluation of the socio-economic factors exacerbating the impact of COVID-19 on NTD burden. RESULTS: Multiple disruptions and setbacks, likely to affect NTD programmes and progress towards their elimination targets were identified in this study. R&D funding for the NTDs and AIDs and TB has declined since the funding high point of 2019, and for malaria since the high point of 2018. Significant changes in allocation of R&D funding within the NTDs are observed post pandemic, likely because of prioritization among donors. Diseases for which the least R&D investment was reported in place, prior to the pandemic (mycetoma, taeniasis/cysticercosis, trachoma and Buruli ulcer) have been particularly impacted post pandemic. We identified specific NTDs including schistosomiasis, leprosy, and rabies that have been affected by the COVID-19 pandemic and disruptions caused to on ongoing NTD control and elimination programs. Pandemic restrictions disrupted essential medical supply manufacturing and distribution impacting immunization programs and hindered efforts to control the spread of infectious diseases. NTD programmes have experienced numerous setbacks including delays in mass drug administration programs (e.g. for schistosomiasis), cancelled or delayed vaccination programs (e.g. for rabies) and closure of testing facilities has resulted in reduced diagnosis, treatment, and disease elimination for all NTDs. Lockdowns and clinic closures causing disruption to essential healthcare services restricted NTD surveillance and treatment programs. Community fears around contracting COVID-19 exacerbated the constraints to service delivery. Disparities in global vaccine distribution have widened with LMICs facing limited access to vaccines and disruption to immunization programs. Finally, the pandemic has led to increased poverty with poor and marginalized communities, impacting nutrition, healthcare access and education all of which have long term implications for NTD management and control. CONCLUSIONS: The COVID-19 pandemic profoundly impacted global health research and global health equity. Attention and funding were diverted from all sectors, significantly affecting research and development efforts set out in the World Health Organization's NTD elimination Roadmaps. Ongoing changes to funding, economic crises, logistics and supply chain disruptions as well as deepening poverty has put a strain on already weak healthcare systems and exacerbated LMIC healthcare challenges. In particular, the delays and constraints to NTD management and elimination programs will have long-reaching consequences highlighting the need for global cooperation and renewed investment to put the NTD roadmap back on track. Targets and milestones are unlikely to be met without significant investment for recovery, in place.