Analysis of the health economics portfolio funded by the National Institutes of Health in response to published guidance.

Health services, economics, and outcomes research (referred to as health economics research hereinafter) is one of the interdisciplinary sciences that the National Institutes of Health (NIH) supports in order to pursue its overall mission to improve health. In 2015, NIH guidance was published to clarify the type of health economics research that NIH would continue to fund. This analysis aimed to determine if there were changes in the number of health economics applications received and funded by NIH after the release of the guidance. Health economics applications submitted to NIH both before and after publication of the guidance were identified using a machine learning approach with input from subject matter experts. Application and funding trends were examined by fiscal year, method of application (solicited vs. unsolicited), and activity code. This study found that application and funding rates of health economics research were decreasing prior to guidance. Following publication of this guidance, the application and funding rate of health economics applications increased.

Community and partner engagement in dissemination and implementation research at the National Institutes of Health: an analysis of recently funded studies and opportunities to advance the field.

BACKGROUND: As the focus has grown in recent years on both engaged research and dissemination and implementation (D&I) research, so too has federal funding to support these areas. The purpose of this analysis is to provide an overall perspective about the range of practices and approaches being used to engage partners in D&I research, with special attention to disparities-relevant research, and to identify gaps and opportunities in research funded by the US National Institutes of Health (NIH) in this space. METHODS: This analysis examined a portfolio of active D&I research grants funded in fiscal years 2020 and 2021 across the NIH. Grant applications were deductively coded and summary statistics were calculated. Cross-tabulations were used to identify trends by engagement and disparities foci. RESULTS: There were 103 grants included in the portfolio, of which 87% contained some form of community or partner engagement, and 50% of engaged grants were relevant to health disparities. Engagement was planned across the research continuum with each study engaging on average 2.5 different partner types. Consultation was the most common level of engagement (56%) while partnership was the least common (3%). On average, each study used 2.2 engagement strategies. Only 16% of grants indicated formally measuring engagement. Compared to non-disparities studies, disparities-relevant studies were about twice as likely to engage partners at the higher levels of partnership or collaboration (19% vs. 11%) and were also more likely to be conducted in community settings (26% vs. 5%). CONCLUSIONS: Based on this portfolio analysis, D&I research appears to regularly integrate engagement approaches and strategies, though opportunities to deepen engagement and diversify who is engaged remain. This manuscript outlines several gaps in the portfolio and describes opportunities for increasing engagement to improve the quality of D&I research and application to advancing health equity. In addition, opportunities for leveraging the consistent and systematic application of engagement approaches and strategies to advance the science of engagement are discussed.

Advancing digital health equity: Directions for behavioral and social science research.

The field of digital health is evolving rapidly and encompasses a wide range of complex and changing technologies used to support individual and population health. The COVID-19 pandemic has augmented digital health expansion and significantly changed how digital health technologies are used. To ensure that these technologies do not create or exacerbate existing health disparities, a multi-pronged and comprehensive research approach is needed. In this commentary, we outline five recommendations for behavioral and social science researchers that are critical to promoting digital health equity. These recommendations include: (i) centering equity in research teams and theoretical approaches, (ii) focusing on issues of digital health literacy and engagement, (iii) using methods that elevate perspectives and needs of underserved populations, (iv) ensuring ethical approaches for collecting and using digital health data, and (v) developing strategies for integrating digital health tools within and across systems and settings. Taken together, these recommendations can help advance the science of digital health equity and justice.

The field of digital health is quickly growing and changing. Digital health technologies have the potential to increase access to health-related information and healthcare and improve wellbeing, but it is important that those technologies don't widen existing health disparities or create new ones. Behavioral and social science researchers have a key role to play in centering equity in their research teams and theoretical approaches, focusing on key barriers to access, uptake, and usage, studying digital health in ways that elevate the voices and needs of historically underserved groups, being thoughtful about how digital health data are collected and used, and making sure that digital health tools are designed to be used in real-world settings.

Noncommunicable Diseases in Low- and Middle-Income Countries: A Strategic Approach to Develop a Global Implementation Research Workforce.

Globally, most of the burden from noncommunicable disease is now evident in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs). At the same time, many effective noncommunicable disease interventions are now available and recommended for implementation and scale-up across LMIC health systems-yet are not being widely implemented. Understanding optimal and sustainable implementation strategies for these interventions within the LMIC context will need locally led and conducted implementation research- a research capacity which currently is lacking. The National Institutes of Health institutes, centers, and offices work with the Fogarty International Center to support biomedical research and research training across the globe. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institutes' Center for Translation Research and Implementation Science has a strategic focus on implementation research in global health. The Center for Translation Research and Implementation Science is considering strategies for developing research capacity and skill sets to conduct this priority research along with National Institutes of Health institutes and centers and other key global institutions that highly value implementation research. Short-term and medium-term strategies will be needed along with building on current efforts and investments and considering new efforts to address gaps. Developing and sustaining this research workforce will present many challenges and require much effort, but the returns could be transformative in advancing the prevention, treatment, and control of noncommunicable diseases within LMICs.

Implementation Research to Address the United States Health Disadvantage: Report of a National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute Workshop.

Four decades ago, U.S. life expectancy was within the same range as other high-income peer countries. However, during the past decades, the United States has fared worse in many key health domains resulting in shorter life expectancy and poorer health-a health disadvantage. The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a panel of national and international health experts and stakeholders for a Think Tank meeting to explore the U.S. health disadvantage and to seek specific recommendations for implementation research opportunities for heart, lung, blood, and sleep disorders. Recommendations for National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute consideration were made in several areas including understanding the drivers of the disadvantage, identifying potential solutions, creating strategic partnerships with common goals, and finally enhancing and fostering a research workforce for implementation research. Key recommendations included exploring why the United States is doing better for health indicators in a few areas compared with peer countries; targeting populations across the entire socioeconomic spectrum with interventions at all levels in order to prevent missing a substantial proportion of the disadvantage; assuring partnership have high-level goals that can create systemic change through collective impact; and finally, increasing opportunities for implementation research training to meet the current needs. Connecting with the research community at large and building on ongoing research efforts will be an important strategy. Broad partnerships and collaboration across the social, political, economic, and private sectors and all civil society will be critical-not only for implementation research but also for implementing the findings to have the desired population impact. Developing the relevant knowledge to tackle the U.S. health disadvantage is the necessary first step to improve U.S. health outcomes.

Perspectives from NHLBI Global Health Think Tank Meeting for Late Stage (T4) Translation Research.

Almost three-quarters (74%) of all the noncommunicable disease burden is found within low- and middle-income countries. In September 2014, the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute held a Global Health Think Tank meeting to obtain expert advice and recommendations for addressing compelling scientific questions for late stage (T4) research-research that studies implementation strategies for proven effective interventions-to inform and guide the National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute's global health research and training efforts. Major themes emerged in two broad categories: 1) developing research capacity; and 2) efficiently defining compelling scientific questions within the local context. Compelling scientific questions included how to deliver inexpensive, scalable, and sustainable interventions using alternative health delivery models that leverage existing human capital, technologies and therapeutics, and entrepreneurial strategies. These broad themes provide perspectives that inform an overarching strategy needed to reduce the heart, lung, blood, and sleep disorders disease burden and global health disparities.

Reducing Health Inequities in the U.S.: Recommendations From the NHLBI's Health Inequities Think Tank Meeting.

The National, Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute convened a Think Tank meeting to obtain insight and recommendations regarding the objectives and design of the next generation of research aimed at reducing health inequities in the United States. The panel recommended several specific actions, including: 1) embrace broad and inclusive research themes; 2) develop research platforms that optimize the ability to conduct informative and innovative research, and promote systems science approaches; 3) develop networks of collaborators and stakeholders, and launch transformative studies that can serve as benchmarks; 4) optimize the use of new data sources, platforms, and natural experiments; and 5) develop unique transdisciplinary training programs to build research capacity. Confronting health inequities will require engaging multiple disciplines and sectors (including communities), using systems science, and intervening through combinations of individual, family, provider, health system, and community-targeted approaches. Details of the panel's remarks and recommendations are provided in this report.

Training and Capacity Building in LMIC for Research in Heart and Lung Diseases: The NHLBI-UnitedHealth Global Health Centers of Excellence Program.

Stemming the tide of noncommunicable diseases (NCDs) worldwide requires a multipronged approach. Although much attention has been paid to disease control measures, there is relatively little consideration of the importance of training the next generation of health-related researchers to play their important role in this global epidemic. The lack of support for early stage investigators in low- and middle-income countries interested in the global NCD field has resulted in inadequate funding opportunities for research, insufficient training in advanced research methodology and data analysis, lack of mentorship in manuscript and grant writing, and meager institutional support for developing, submitting, and administering research applications and awards. To address this unmet need, The National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute-UnitedHealth Collaborating Centers of Excellence initiative created a Training Subcommittee that coordinated and developed an intensive, mentored health-related research experience for a number of early stage investigators from the 11 Centers of Excellence around the world. We describe the challenges faced by early stage investigators in low- and middle-income countries, the organization and scope of the Training Subcommittee, training activities, early outcomes of the early stage investigators (foreign and domestic) and training materials that have been developed by this program that are available to the public. By investing in the careers of individuals in a supportive global NCD network, we demonstrate the impact that an investment in training individuals from low- and middle-income countries can have on the preferred future of or current efforts to combat NCDs.

Tackling NCD in LMIC: Achievements and Lessons Learned From the NHLBI-UnitedHealth Global Health Centers of Excellence Program.

Effectively tackling the growing noncommunicable disease (NCD) burden in low- and middle-income countries (LMIC) is a major challenge. To address research needs in this setting for NCDs, in 2009, National Heart, Lung, and Blood Institute (NHLBI) and UnitedHealth Group (UHG) engaged in a public-private partnership that supported a network of 11 LMIC-based research centers and created the NHLBI-UnitedHealth Global Health Centers of Excellence (COE) Program. The Program's overall goal was to contribute to reducing the cardiovascular and lung disease burdens by catalyzing in-country research institutions to develop a global network of biomedical research centers. Key elements of the Program included team science and collaborative approaches, developing research and training platforms for future investigators, and creating a data commons. This Program embraced a strategic approach for tackling NCDs in LMICs and will provide capacity for locally driven research efforts that can identify and address priority health issues in specific countries' settings.