European diabetes research and its funding, 2002-2013.

AIM: This study examined the outputs of research papers in diabetes from 31 European countries between 2002 and 2013, and their funding. METHODS: Diabetes research papers in the Web of Science were identified by means of a filter based on journals and title words. For 2009-2013 papers, the funders were coded to show their sector and nationality. RESULTS: Europe published 40 547 diabetes papers in the 12 years between 2002 and 2013. Denmark, Sweden and Finland published the most relative to their wealth, but the UK published the most absolutely despite an apparently low burden (as measured by disability-adjusted life years). The largest source of funding was government (30%), followed by the non-profit sector (18%) and industry (13%). The European Commission supported 2.7% of papers, but more in Latvia (33%) and Estonia (16%). Based on an estimated cost per paper of €260 000, the annual research expenditure in Europe was approximately €986 million in 2013. CONCLUSIONS: The European diabetes burden in disability-adjusted life years increased by one third between 2002 and 2012, but its output of research papers has decreased from 44% to 36% of the world total. This decrease needs to be reviewed in the context of European non-communicable disease research policy.

Cancer and mental health--a clinical and research unmet need.

BACKGROUND: Poor mental health is the largest single source of disability in the UK, and co-morbid health problems, particularly with cancer, raise total health care costs significantly. METHODS: This study examined what research is being conducted into the intersection between cancer and mental health. Research papers captured by the intersection of sub-field filters-'mental disorder' and 'cancer'-were studied from the Web of Science over a 10-year period (2002-2011). RESULTS: There were 1463 papers dealing with the dual presence of cancer and mental disorder. They amounted to 0.26% of cancer research and 0.51% of mental health research over the 10-year period, indicating that their intersection receives little research attention. Eighty per cent of papers were concerned with the effects of cancer on mental health rather than the reverse; a few (5%) looked at the post-traumatic stress suffered by carers of cancer patients. Of cancer types, breast dominated (21%), followed by prostate (5%), lung (3%), oral (2%) and colorectal (2%) cancer. The area of mental health most studied in cancer was unipolar depression. CONCLUSIONS: The paucity of research that exists at the intersection of cancer and mental health requires attention from policymakers and funders in order to address an important trans-disciplinary gap in health care research.

The reporting of mental disorders research in British media.

BACKGROUND: While the media may significantly influence public attitudes and government policies affecting the research agenda, how mental health research is reported in the media has been virtually unstudied. The aim of this study was to examine stories concerning mental health research published on the British Broadcasting Corporation (BBC) website between 1999 and 2008 and in New Scientist between 2008 and 2010. METHOD: Stories were retrieved from on-line archives. Story content was coded and assessed against: 'disease burden' of mental disorders; the general corpus of research papers in mental health and the countries from which they originated; the journals in which cited papers were published; and funding sources. RESULTS: A total of 1015 BBC stories reporting mental health research and 133 New Scientist stories were found. The distribution of stories did not reflect 'disease burden'; research on dementia was over-represented, while depression and alcohol were under-represented. There was an emphasis on biological research while stories on psychological interventions were rare. UK research was over-represented. Research funded by government and private non-profit sources was over-represented. Commentators from Alzheimer's Disease charities were prominent. CONCLUSIONS: Consideration of reported stories may suggest approaches to working with the media to improve the public understanding of, and support for, mental health research. The role of commentators may be especially important.

An analysis of research activity in major UK cancer centres.

The organisation of cancer research is critical to its overall creativity and productivity. Cancer centres are a major organisational structure for this research, however, little is known about their effect on research or how national policy-making intersects with this complex policy nexus. This study of the evolution of United Kingdom cancer centres (UKCC), part of a wider European and United States programme, uses a bibliometric analysis of research activity prior to the creation of the NCRI and after its formation (1995-2004/5). In terms of critical research mass UKCC are very heterogeneous with a fourfold difference between the top and bottom quintiles. UK centres published just over one eighth of the total UKCC in 1995 but almost a quarter by 2004. This centrification occurred in the absence of any national strategy. Overall these centres conduct more fundamental (laboratory-based) research than that being conducted in the wider network but this hides major heterogeneity. UKCC collaborate with European investigators in 5-28% of all their outputs and with USA the range is between 6% and 21%. We have also derived new measures of research impact on clinical management and the general public as well as the impact of national policy on research assessment for certain types of cancer research.

The state of research into children with cancer across Europe: new policies for a new decade.

Overcoming childhood cancers is critically dependent on the state of research. Understanding how, with whom and what the research community is doing with childhood cancers is essential for ensuring the evidence-based policies at national and European level to support children, their families and researchers. As part of the European Union funded EUROCANCERCOMS project to study and integrate cancer communications across Europe, we have carried out new research into the state of research in childhood cancers. We are very grateful for all the support we have received from colleagues in the European paediatric oncology community, and in particular from Edel Fitzgerald and Samira Essiaf from the SIOP Europe office. This report and the evidence-based policies that arise from it come at a important junction for Europe and its Member States. They provide a timely reminder that research into childhood cancers is critical and needs sustainable long-term support.

How do the media report cancer research? A study of the UK's BBC website.

This study examined cancer research stories on the BBC web archive (July 1998-June 2006). There were about 260 BBC stories per year, of which about 170 were classed as relevant to reports of cancer research. The stories focused heavily on breast cancer, and over one-third of them mentioned this (compared with a cancer disease burden of 13%); the next most covered sites were lung and prostate cancers, although the former was much less mentioned than its cancer disease burden of almost 20% would have suggested. The focus of the stories was often on new or improved drugs or vaccines (20% of stories), with lifestyle choices (12%), genetic developments (9%), and food and drink (8%) also featuring fairly prominently. The BBC stories cited about 1380 research papers that could be identified as journal articles. About three-quarters of the cited papers were in the field of cancer. The papers of these authors came from over 60 countries, and 40% were from the United Kingdom and 36% from the United States. UK cancer research was heavily overcited, by about 6:1, relative to its presence in world oncology research and US research was cited about in proportion. That of most other countries, especially Japan, Germany, and Austria, was relatively undercited. These cited papers also acknowledged more funding bodies. Most of the BBC stories were put in context by external commentators, of whom the large majority was from the UK's cancer research charities.

The impact of cancer research: how publications influence UK cancer clinical guidelines.

There has been a substantially increased interest in biomedical research impact assessment over the past 5 years. This can be studied by a number of methods, but its influence on clinical guidelines must rank as one of the most important. In cancer, there are 43 UK guidelines (and associated Health Technology Assessments) published (up to October 2006) across three series, each of which has an evidence base in the form of references, many of which are papers in peer-reviewed journals. These have all been identified and analysed to determine their geographical provenance and type of research, in comparison with overall oncology research published in the peak years of guideline references (1999-2001). The UK papers were cited nearly three times as frequently as would have been expected from their presence in world oncology research (6.5%). Within the United Kingdom, Edinburgh and Glasgow stood out for their unexpectedly high contributions to the guidelines' scientific base. The cited papers from the United Kingdom acknowledged much more explicit funding from all sectors than did the UK cancer research papers at the same research level.

Worldwide alcohol-related research and the disease burden.

AIMS: The purpose of this study was to determine the international commitment to alcohol-related research relative to its global burden of disease, which is 4% of disability adjusted life years (DALYs). METHODS: The worldwide literature indexed in the Science Citation Index and the Social Sciences Citation Index during 1992-2003 was analysed using advanced bibliometric techniques. RESULTS: Biomedical research and the global disease burden due to alcohol both increased during 1992-2003, whilst the number of papers from alcohol-related research remained static and declined to <0.7% of all biomedical research literature. Nearly 58% of all alcohol-related research papers were from Canada and the United States, 30% from Western Europe, and 10% from Australia, New Zealand, or Japan. However, these regions suffer only 13% of the global burden of disease due to alcohol; meanwhile, the rest of the world contributed only 8% of the total research whilst suffering from 87% of the disease burden. The estimated annual expenditure on alcohol-related research in 2001 was 730 million dollars, or about 12 dollars per DALY due to alcohol. CONCLUSIONS: The global commitment to alcohol-related research is only one-sixth of that warranted by the burden of disease due to alcohol. Most such research is conducted in the developed world but is still less than that appropriate to the regional burden of disease. There is a need for more interest in alcohol-related research in the developing world, particularly in Latin America and Eastern Europe in view of their high burden of disease due to alcohol.

Research outputs in respiratory medicine.

BACKGROUND: There is currently little information regarding how much the distribution of research activity in respiratory medicine reflects the interests of its clinicians and scientists, the disease burden in any country, or the availability of funding. METHODS: A total of 81,419 respiratory medicine publications identified in the Science Citation Index for the years 1996-2001 were assigned to 14 subject areas (mainly based on title words) and to 15 OECD countries. Outputs were compared with a nation's disease burdens and, for the UK, the sources of research funding were investigated. RESULTS AND CONCLUSIONS: Overall, Finland, Canada, Spain and the UK had the greatest relative commitment to respiratory medicine research expressed as a ratio of their share of world biomedical research. The largest subject areas were asthma, lung cancer, and paediatric lung disease, each with over 1400 papers published per year. Australia and Canada led in relative commitment to sleep research and Sweden and Finland led in research on asthma. Australia and the UK produced significant numbers of publications on cystic fibrosis (CF) but Finland produced few. The Netherlands has a strong output on chronic obstructive pulmonary disease (COPD), France and the UK on diffuse parenchymal lung disease (DPLD), and Finland dominated occupational lung disease research but had few publications on HIV/AIDS where Spain proportionately produced most. Finland and Australia had strong outputs in paediatric lung disease research. For most subject areas the research output of a country correlated poorly with disease burden. In the UK, lung cancer research appeared unduly low in relation to the number of deaths and COPD outputs were low compared with those for asthma. However, correlations were positive for the burden of CF and pulmonary complications of HIV/AIDS which explains, for example, the low outputs in these subject areas from Finland. The strong performance in CF research in the UK is likely to reflect significant charitable funding, while sleep research, pulmonary circulatory disease, and DPLD had little stated external funding or sponsorship.

What Scottish primary care researchers are doing to recover their standing in the UK.

OBJECTIVE: To compare the outputs of Scottish PC research with the rest of the UK. DESIGN: Bibliometric analysis of the research level and potential impact of research publications. Papers are categorised by level (RL) from basic research to clinical observation and potential impact category (PIC), a 5 year impact factor on a numerical scale. SETTING: Interrogation of the Wellcome Trust's Research Outputs Database 1988-97. SUBJECTS: 17,303 papers, 2,280 arising from Scottish primary care. RESULTS: Scottish primary care publications totalled 14% of the published research in the UK during 1988, by 1997 it had fallen to 10%. PC researchers in the rest of the UK produced a 60% increase (1169 to 1866 per annum) in publications compared to our 25% increase (201 to 251 per annum) over the same period. Scottish papers were less likely to be presenting basic science. The mean potential impact was slightly lower than the rest of the UK (1.89 compared to 1.94, s.e.m.0.02). CONCLUSION: Scottish PC research outputs grew more slowly than the rest of the UK during 1988-97. The research interests and journals selected by the research community contributed to this pattern. The climate, infrastructure and skills required for more effective PC research during this period were also significant factors. The Scottish School of Primary Care provides a mechanism for everyone in NHSScotland and Higher Education Institutions to address the underlying issues identified in this analysis. As a 'baseline' analysis, this report will allow progress to be monitored as the SSPC becomes increasingly effective.

International gastroenterology research: subject areas, impact, and funding.

AIMS: To examine the volume and potential impact of gastroenterology research outputs from 1985 to 1998 from 14 developed countries; the overlap with research in cancer, infectious diseases, and genetics; and the funding sources for this research. To determine if countries' research outputs correlated with their burden of corresponding diseases and inputs to their research. METHODS: Selective retrieval of papers from the Science Citation Index and manual look up of a sample to determine funding sources. Classification of journals by four categories of research level (clinical/basic) and potential impact (low/high). RESULTS: Gastroenterology represents about 8% of world biomedical research but over 11% in Italy, Japan, and Spain. Its potential impact is highest (but declining) for the USA. It has increased noticeably in most European countries, particularly in Finland. Gastroenterology research has become more clinical in Japan, Spain, Australia, and the Netherlands but more basic in Canada, Germany, Finland, Israel, and South Africa. Funding comes primarily from national governments, followed by national private non-profit sources and industry but little industrial funding occurs in some countries. There is a strong and positive correlation between reported deaths from gastrointestinal neoplasms and countries' outputs of research in gastrointestinal oncology. CONCLUSIONS: Bibliometric analysis can reveal differences between countries in their research in a subject when a common methodology is applied to an international database. Variations in research methods in different countries can plausibly explain some of the variation in the potential impact of the work.

Endogenous and exogenous research? Findings from a bibliometric study of UK nursing research.

AIMS OF THE STUDY: This paper uses the findings of a recent bibliometric analysis of published UK nursing research to ask whether the field is characterized by a fundamental split between two underlying areas of research interest. These can be termed 'endogenous' and 'exogenous'. The former term describes research which tends to be concerned with problems and issues to do with nursing as a profession; the latter is concerned with problems and issues centring around the nursing of patients. DESIGN/METHODS: Papers in the Wellcome Trust's Research Outputs Database (ROD), a database of UK biomedical research, were analysed. Nursing papers published between 1988 and 1995 numbered 1,845, just less than 1% of the total papers in the ROD. RESULTS/FINDINGS: Analysis of the subfield identified that nursing research was atypical of biomedical research as a whole in a number of ways. One difference was that usually in biomedical research there is a general correlation between numbers of funders acknowledged on a paper, numbers of authors, and esteem of the journal in which a paper appears. In nursing there was, if anything, a tendency for highly esteemed papers to have fewer authors and be less likely to have acknowledged funding. However, the apparently endogenous and exogenous papers have quite different characteristics. This paper explores this apparent difference and possible reasons for this difference and will briefly compare nursing research with some other newly emerging social and academic groups. CONCLUSIONS: Thinking of nursing research outputs in this way can provide insight into the existence of different reward systems influencing nurse researchers. However, it is impossible to draw too confident a differentiation without reading each individual paper and making judgements about whether they are 'endogenous' or 'exogenous', a practice generally beyond the scope of bibliometric practice.

Bibliometric methods for the evaluation of arthritis research.

This study uses bibliometric methods to evaluate the magnitude and quality of publications in arthritis research in the UK and compare this with that of other countries. Arthritis research was defined by publication in a specialist journal or by specific title key words or address. Outputs from 13 countries between 1988 and 1995 were analysed by number, research level (from clinical to basic) and potential impact on other researchers (from low to high). The UK has a strong presence in arthritis research and the highest relative commitment of all the countries studied. UK output was more clinical than that of other countries, except Spain, and was of relatively high impact. A second study examined UK arthritis papers supported by different funding sources, including government, private-non-profit and industry. Papers with funding acknowledgements were of significantly higher impact and less clinical than those without. The Arthritis Research Campaign was the leading funder in the UK with high-impact papers which, over the 8 yr period, have become more clinical than those supported by other funding sources, except hospital trusts.

Gastroenterology research in the United Kingdom: funding sources and impact.

AIMS: To determine the sources of founding for UK gastroenterology research papers and the relative impact of papers funded by different groups and of unfunded ones. METHODS: UK gastroenterology papers from 1988-94 were selectively retrieved from the Science Citation Index by means of a specially constructed filter based on their title keywords and journal names. They were looked up in libraries to determine their funding sources and these, together with their numbers of authors, numbers of addresses, and research category (clinical/basic) were considered as input parameters to the research. Output parameters analysed were mean journal impact category, citation counts by papers, and the frequency of citation by a US patient. RESULTS: Gastroenterology papers comprise about 7% of all UK biomedical research and 46% of them have no acknowledged funding source. One quarter of the papers acknowledged government support, and a similar fraction a private, non-profit source; 11% were funded by the pharmaceutical industry. The papers acknowledging funding had significantly more impact than the others on all three measures. The citing patents had six times more UK inventors than the average for all US Patent and Trademark Office patents in the relevant classes and were mostly generic in application. CONCLUSION: The variation in impact of papers funded by different sources can mostly be explained by a simple model based on the input factors (numbers of funding bodies, numbers of authors, numbers of addresses, and research type). The national science base in gastroenterology is important for the underpinning of UK invented patents citing to it.