A taxing problem: The impacts of research payment practices on participants and inclusive research.

Empirical data regarding payments to participants in research is limited. This lack of information constrains our understanding of the effectiveness of payments to achieve scientific goals with respect to recruitment, retention, and inclusion. We conducted a content analysis of consent forms and protocols available on clinicaltrials.gov to determine what information researchers provide regarding payment. We extracted data from HIV (n = 101) and NIMH-funded studies (n = 65) listed on clinicaltrials.gov that had publicly posted a consent form. Using a manifest content analysis approach, we then coded the language regarding payment from the consent document and, where available, protocol for purpose and method of the payment. Although not part of our original planned analysis, the tax-related information that emerged from our content analysis of the consent form language provided additional insights into researcher payment practices. Accordingly, we also recorded whether the payment section mentioned social security numbers (or other tax identification number) in connection with payments and whether it made any statements regarding the Internal Revenue Service or the tax status of payments. We found studies commonly offered payment, but did not distinguish between the purposes for which payment may be offered (i.e., compensation, reimbursement, incentive, or appreciation). We also found studies that excluded some participants from receiving payment or treated them differently from other participants in the study. Differential treatment was typically linked to US tax laws and other legal requirements. A number of US studies also discussed the need to collect Social Security numbers and income reporting based on US tax laws. Collectively, these practices disadvantage some participants and may interfere with efforts to conduct more inclusive research.

The economic case for scaling up health research and development: Lessons from the COVID-19 pandemic.

In response to the COVID-19 pandemic, governments directly funded vaccine research and development (R&D), quickly leading to multiple effective vaccines and resulting in enormous health and economic benefits to society. We develop a simple economic model showing this feat could potentially be repeated for other health challenges. Based on inputs from the economic and medical literatures, the model yields estimates of optimal R&D spending on treatments and vaccines for known diseases. Taking a global and societal perspective, we estimate the social benefits of such spending and a corresponding rate of return. Applications to Streptococcus A vaccines and Alzheimer's disease treatments demonstrate the potential of enhanced research and development funding to unlock massive global health and health-related benefits. We estimate that these benefits range from 2 to 60 trillion (2020 US$) and that the corresponding rates of return on R&D spending range from 12% to 23% per year for 30 y. We discuss the current shortfall in R&D spending and public policies that can move current funding closer to the optimal level.

Researcher, research thyself? Mapping the landscape of canine health and welfare research funding provided by UK not-for-profit organisations from 2012-2022.

BACKGROUND: Research into canine health and welfare is supported by Government, charitable and private UK funding organisations. However, there is no current overall visibility or coordination of these funding activities, potentially compromising optimal distribution of limited resources. This study aimed to survey UK canine health and welfare funding by not-for-profit funders between 2012 and 2022, providing a novel baseline analysis to inform future sector stakeholder priorities. RESULTS: Funding data were collected from 10 wide-scope funders (UK Government funding councils and medical charities), 18 animal-directed funders (organisations specifically concerned with animal health and welfare) and 81 breed community groups. These 109 UK funders together provided traceable canine-relevant funding of £57.8 million during the surveyed period, comprising 684 individual grant awards supporting over 500 separate research projects. Wide-scope funders contributed £41.2 million (71.2% of total funding); animal-directed organisations, £16.3 million (28.1% of total funding); and breed-specific groups, £370K (0.6% of total funding). Individual grants ranged from £2.3 million to £300. Funding patterns varied between sectors. Animal-directed funders provided £14.7 million of canine-relevant research funding that foregrounded the dog, 73% of all such funding; wide-scope funders provided £17.5 million of canine-relevant One Health research funding, 97% of all such funding. Customised metrics developed for this study assessed the 'benefit to the dog' and 'pathway to impact' of individual research projects. Overall, studies supported by animal-directed funders achieved significantly higher 'benefit to the dog' scores (Mann-Whitney U = 45235, p<0.001) and 'pathway to impact' scores (Mann-Whitney U = 43506.5, p<0.001) than those supported by wide-scope funders. CONCLUSION: The landscape of UK not-for-profit funding of canine health and welfare research is complex, with considerable variation between providers. Although wide-scope funders provide the majority of overall canine-relevant research funding, animal-directed funders provide the majority of canine-focused funding and support research with greater direct impact on canine welfare. Visibility of past funding patterns will enable stakeholders in this sector to make more informed decisions about future research. DEFINITIONS: To increase clarity, certain words and phrases are used in specific ways within the context of this paper. Animal-directed funders-Charities and other funding organisations whose remit primarily concerns animals or veterinary work Canine-focused research-Investigations where the primary purpose is to advance understandings of canine health and/or welfare Canine-relevant research-All research that is framed as advancing understandings of canine health and/or welfare as a primary or subsidiary purpose Institution-Refers to universities and other centres where research is carried out Organisation-Refers to funding bodies, including research councils, charities and other groups Research grant-A single funding event originating from one or more funders Research project-A cohesive piece of research concerning a particular topic; may involve multiple researchers and/or multiple research grants, in series or in parallel Wide-scope funders-Large organisations whose remit does not primarily concern animals, i.e. (in this dataset) UKRI councils and the Wellcome Trust.

Addressing challenges in low-income and middle-income countries through novel radiotherapy research opportunities.

Although radiotherapy continues to evolve as a mainstay of the oncological armamentarium, research and innovation in radiotherapy in low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) faces challenges. This third Series paper examines the current state of LMIC radiotherapy research and provides new data from a 2022 survey undertaken by the International Atomic Energy Agency and new data on funding. In the context of LMIC-related challenges and impediments, we explore several developments and advances-such as deep phenotyping, real-time targeting, and artificial intelligence-to flag specific opportunities with applicability and relevance for resource-constrained settings. Given the pressing nature of cancer in LMICs, we also highlight some best practices and address the broader need to develop the research workforce of the future. This Series paper thereby serves as a resource for radiation professionals.

Trends in Industry-Sponsored Research Payments to Physician Principal Investigators.

This cohort study investigates trends in total and per-physician industry-sponsored research payments to physician principal investigators from 2015 to 2022.

[Medical philanthropy in the United States]. / La philanthropie médicale aux États-Unis.

Philanthropic foundations played a crucial role in rationalizating and organizing American society in the late 19th and early 20th centuries. The promotion of science was applied to medical reform, leading to the advent of genuine medical research within the framework of brand-new university hospital faculties. With the two world wars, the state became heavily involved in the field of healthcare. After 1945, it became the main source of funding for biomedical research. Philanthropy did not disappear from the institutional landscape; it continued to work in tandem with public authorities. Its role in medical research is now minor in terms of funding volume, but a strategic one in the development of projects aimed at advancing basic science and knowledge of various diseases.

Title: La philanthropie médicale aux États-Unis. Abstract: Les fondations philanthropiques ont pris une part décisive dans la rationalisation et l'organisation de la médecine dans la société américaine des débuts du xxe siècle, période pendant laquelle la promotion de la science a donné lieu à l'avènement d'une véritable recherche médicale spécialisée dans le cadre des nouvelles facultés hospitalo-universitaires. Avec les deux guerres mondiales, l'État fédéral s'est fortement engagé dans le champ de la santé. Au point qu'après 1945, il est devenu la principale source de financement de l'innovation biomédicale. La philanthropie ne disparaît pas pour autant du paysage institutionnel. Elle continue de fonctionner en tandem avec les pouvoirs publics. Son rôle est aujourd'hui minoritaire en termes de volume de financement, mais stratégique dans l'avènement de projets visant à faire avancer les connaissances sur des processus fondamentaux ainsi que sur de nombreuses maladies.

U.S. blocks funding for pandemic research group.

EcoHealth Alliance mishandled grant that helped fund virus studies in China, officials say.

Cross-disease spillover from research funding: Evidence from four diseases.

There is widespread appreciation for the role of research in addressing health problems. However, there is limited evidence on the extent to which research can be targeted to specific diseases. Analyses highlighting a concentration of research funding towards certain diseases have prompted growing scrutiny over the allocation of research funding. In this paper, we show that research funding targeted to a disease often results in publications relating to other diseases. Using data from the world's largest biomedical research funders, we estimated the frequency and direction of this cross-disease spillover by examining 337,573 grant-publication pairs for four diseases. We found the majority of our grant-publication pairs were cross-disease spillovers. We also found some variation between "rich" and "poor" diseases, in terms of the frequency and direction of cross-disease spillover. These differences are likely to be related to characteristics of the diseases themselves, as well as features of the research environment. One implication of frequent cross-disease spillover is that although more investment in areas of research such as neglected diseases is necessary, it may not be sufficient to improve the alignment between research funding and health needs.

A devastating blow: personal reflections on Argentina's scientific decline.

As an Argentine scientist, the defunding of CONICET and INTA feels like a blow to progress and our future. Despite free education, these cuts force talented researchers to seek opportunities abroad. Argentina's history of scientific achievement, from Nobel Prizes to COVID-19 vaccines, is at risk. Defunding science weakens our ability to solve problems and compete globally.

The Intersection of Cardiovascular Health and Maternal Health: Portfolio Analysis of Federal Grant Funding 2016-2021.

Background: The United States has high and increasing rates of maternal morbidity and mortality, large proportions of which are related to cardiovascular health (CVH). Methods: We searched for National Institutes of Health (NIH) supported research as well as that of two other Agencies in the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS) for fiscal years (FY) 2016-2021. Grants included maternal health conditions or exposures across all pregnancy stages, but excluded grants that focused entirely on birth, neonatal, infant/childhood outcomes. Results were manually curated by reviewing the abstract and specific aims. Grants deemed to be relevant were grouped by category. Results: Between FY 2016-2021, overall Maternal Health grants remained unchanged at an average of 1.4% of total DHHS grant funding. Maternal CVH-specific (MCVH) funding amounted to $278,926,105 for 755 grants, $191,344,649 was for 534 Type-1 grants, representing a twofold increase. Non-NIH DHHS agencies most commonly funded general Maternal Health related to CVH; NIH focused funding classified as hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, maternal morbidity and mortality, obesity, and diabetes. Non-NIH DHSS Agencies most commonly funded clinical applied research. In addition to clinical applied grants, NIH funded substantial proportions of grants classified as basic research, clinical trials, and/or translational. National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) MCVH grants studied participants in the pre-partum period (78.5%), followed by the post-partum period (50.5%), with relatively few in pre-pregnancy and peri-partum periods (10.8% and 9.7%, respectively); at the NIH level, the peri-partum period had better representation at 20.3%, whereas the pre-pregnancy period remained low at 9.9%. Conclusions: Federal grant funding for maternal health including MCVH increased at the same rate as its funding for overall research, and represented only 1.4% of overall total funding. The pre-pregnancy period was understudied in overall NIH funding and represents a gap area whereby funding agencies could further foster research advances.

Evolution of public funding since primary care research was considered as a priority research domain in france.

PURPOSE: Annually, the French Ministry of Health funds clinical research projects based on a national call for projects. Since 2013, the Ministry has prioritized funding of primary care. Projects selected for funding are made public without distinguishing the specific area of research. The objective of this study was to identify and describe the evolution of the primary care research projects funded by the Ministry of Health between 2013 and 2019. METHOD: We reviewed all of the 1796 medical research projects funded between 2013 and 2019 and categorized projects as primary care projects by using a list of specific keywords. This list was established through two approaches: (1) selected by an expert committee, the RECaP primary care working group, and (2) using an automated textual analysis of published articles in the field. The keywords were used to screen the titles of the medical research projects funded. The abstracts (at www. CLINICALTRIALS: gov ) or details (from project leaders) were then analyzed by two independent reviewers to determine true primary care projects. RESULTS: Finally, 49 primary care projects were identified, representing 2.7% of all medical research projects funded, without any significant change over the period. These projects were predominantly interventional (69%), with a median number of patients expected per project of 902. CONCLUSION: Despite the prioritization of primary care research in 2013 by the French ministry of health, the number and proportion of projects funded remains low, with no significant change over the years. TRIAL REGISTRATION: Not applicable.

Research prioritization in paediatric orthopaedics and the impact on funding.

In 2017, the British Society for Children's Orthopaedic Surgery engaged the profession and all relevant stakeholders in two formal research prioritization processes. In this editorial, we describe the impact of this prioritization on funding, and how research in children's orthopaedics, which was until very recently a largely unfunded and under-investigated area, is now flourishing. Establishing research priorities was a crucial step in this process.

NIH's flat budget for 2024 will force 'very difficult decisions'.

Belated Senate and House compromise eliminates policy riders restricting certain studies.

ChatGPT for Automated Cross-Checking of Authors' Conflicts of Interest Against Industry Payments.

OBJECTIVE: The Centers for Medicare & Medicaid Services "OpenPayments" database tracks industry payments to US physicians to improve research conflicts of interest (COIs) transparency, but manual cross-checking of articles' authors against this database is labor-intensive. This study aims to assess the potential of large language models (LLMs) like ChatGPT to automate COI data analysis in medical publications. STUDY DESIGN: An observational study analyzing the accuracy of ChatGPT in automating the cross-checking of COI disclosures in medical research articles against the OpenPayments database. SETTING: Publications regarding Food and Drug Administration-approved biologics for chronic rhinosinusitis with nasal polyposis: omalizumab, mepolizumab, and dupilumab. METHODS: First, ChatGPT evaluated author affiliations from PubMed to identify those based in the United States. Second, for author names matching 1 or multiple payment recipients in OpenPayments, ChatGPT undertook a comparative analysis between author affiliation and OpenPayments recipient metadata. Third, ChatGPT scrutinized full article COI statements, producing an intricate matrix of disclosures for each author against each relevant company (Sanofi, Regeneron, Genentech, Novartis, and GlaxoSmithKline). A random subset of responses was manually checked for accuracy. RESULTS: In total, 78 relevant articles and 294 unique US authors were included, leading to 980 LLM queries. Manual verification showed accuracies of 100% (200/200; 95% confidence interval [CI]: 98.1%-100%) for country analysis, 97.4% (113/116; 95% CI: 92.7%-99.1%) for matching author affiliations with OpenPayments metadata, and 99.2% (1091/1100; 95% CI: 98.5%-99.6%) for COI statement data extraction. CONCLUSION: LLMs have robust potential to automate author-company-specific COI cross-checking against the OpenPayments database. Our findings pave the way for streamlined, efficient, and accurate COI assessment that could be widely employed across medical research.

Underfunding for Research Training and Career Development: The Impact on Family Medicine Research.

BACKGROUND AND OBJECTIVES: The National Institutes of Health and related federal awards for research training (RT) and research career development (RCD) are designed to prepare applicants for research careers. We compared funding rates for RT and RCD for anesthesiology, dermatology, emergency medicine, family medicine, internal medicine, neurology, obstetrics-gynecology, pathology, pediatrics, and psychiatry. METHODS: We estimated the denominator using the number of residency graduates from different specialties from 2001 to 2010 from the Association of American Medical Colleges data. For the numerator, we used published data on federally funded awards by specialty from 2011 to 2020. We also examined the correlation between RCD funding and overall research funding. RESULTS: Family medicine had the lowest rate per graduating resident for RT (0.01%) and RCD (0.77%) awards among 10 specialties and was lower than the mean/median for the other nine specialties, ranging from 2.15%/1.19% and 9.83%/8.74%. We found a strong correlation between rates of RCD awards and mean federal funding per active physician, which was statistically significant (ρ=0.77, P=.0098). CONCLUSIONS: Comparatively low rates for family medicine awards for RT and RCD plausibly contribute to poor federal funding for family medicine research, underscoring the need to bolster the research career pathway in family medicine.