The intersection of health and housing: Analysis of the research portfolios of the National Institutes of Health, Centers for Disease Control and Prevention, and U.S. Department of Housing and Urban Development.

BACKGROUND: Housing is a major social determinant of health that affects health status and outcomes across the lifespan. OBJECTIVES: An interagency portfolio analysis assessed the level of funding invested in "health and housing research" from fiscal years (FY) 2016-2020 across the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the United States Department of Housing and Urban Development (HUD), and the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC) to characterize the existing health and housing portfolio and identify potential areas for additional research and collaboration. METHODS/RESULTS: We identified NIH, HUD, and CDC research projects that were relevant to both health and housing and characterized them by housing theme, health topic, population, and study design. We organized the assessment of the individual housing themes by four overarching housing-to-health pathways. From FY 2016-2020, NIH, HUD, and CDC funded 565 health and housing projects combined. The Neighborhood pathway was most common, followed by studies of the Safety and Quality pathway. Studies of the Affordability and Stability pathways were least common. Health topics such as substance use, mental health, and cardiovascular disease were most often studied. Most studies were observational (66%); only a little over one fourth (27%) were intervention studies. DISCUSSION: This review of the research grant portfolios of three major federal funders of health and housing research in the United States describes the diversity and substantial investment in research at the intersection between housing and health. Analysis of the combined portfolio points to gaps in studies on causal pathways linking housing to health outcomes. The findings highlight the need for research to better understand the causal pathways from housing to health and prevention intervention research, including rigorous evaluation of housing interventions and policies to improve health and well-being.

Opioids and Chronic Pain: Impact of the NIH Pathways to Prevention Evidence-Based Workshop Program.

The National Institutes of Health (NIH) Office of Disease Prevention (ODP) sponsors Pathways to Prevention (P2P), an evidence-based scientific workshop program that helps advance prevention research. Each P2P workshop is presided over by an independent expert panel and informed by a systematic evidence review, scientific presentations, and public input. Post-workshop activities include collaborating with federal agency partners to develop an action plan for addressing key research gaps. Primary outcomes of P2P workshops include developing a research agenda and creating or enhancing initiatives to implement the agenda. In 2014, ODP partnered with the NIH Pain Consortium and two NIH institutes to convene "The Role of Opioids in the Treatment of Chronic Pain." This workshop assessed the state-of-the-science on the long-term effectiveness, safety, and harms of opioid use for managing chronic pain. In 2021, ODP initiated an assessment of the outcomes and impact of the Opioids P2P workshop. We applied an evaluation framework and a mixed methods approach encompassing web analytics, bibliometric assessment, grant portfolio analysis, policy assessment, and key informant interviews. Our data showed that the workshop attracted a broad audience, and its published reports had high impact. The workshop also helped inform over 100 new research projects through grants funded by three federal agencies, as well as national legislation and practice guidelines from influential organizations. In sum, the Opioids P2P workshop and follow-up activities have identified gaps in scientific knowledge, informed clinical practice, and catalyzed change on a national level for addressing the prescription opioid crisis.

Impact of National Institutes of Health and Food and Drug Administration Tobacco Research Funding: A Bibliometrics Analyses.

INTRODUCTION: Conduct bibliometric analyses documenting the output of National Institutes of Health (NIH) tobacco-related and Food and Drug Administration (FDA) tobacco regulatory science (FDA-TRS) research portfolios. AIMS AND METHODS: PubMed identifiers for publications between 2015 and 2020 citing tobacco funding by NIH and/or FDA were imported into NIH iCite generating measures of productivity and influence, including number of citations, journal, relative citation ratios (RCR), and comparison of research influence across Web of Science (WoS) disciplines. Coauthorship and measures of centrality among and between NIH and FDA-supported investigators gauged collaboration. RESULTS: Between FY 2015 and 2020, 8160 publications cited funding from NIH tobacco-related grants, 1776 cited FDA-TRS grants and 496 cited Common funding (ie, both NIH and FDA-TRS funding). The proportion of publications citing NIH grants declined while those citing FDA-TRS or Common funding rose significantly. Publications citing Common funding showed the highest influence (mean RCR = 2.52). Publications citing FDA-TRS funding displayed higher median RCRs than publications citing NIH funding in most WoS categories. Higher translational progress was estimated over time for FDA-TRS and Common publications compared to NIH publications. Authors citing Common funding scored highest across all collaboration measures. CONCLUSIONS: This study demonstrates the high bibliometric output of tobacco research overall. The rise in publications citing FDA-TRS and Common likely reflects increased funding for TRS research. Higher RCRs across WoS subject categories and trends towards human translation among FDA-TRS and Common publications indicate focus on research to inform regulation. This analysis suggests that FDA support for TRS has expanded the field of tobacco control resulting in sustained productivity, influence, and collaboration. IMPLICATIONS: This paper is the first effort to better describe the impact of tobacco research resulting from the addition of FDA funding for TRS in the past decade. The analysis provides impetus for further investigation into the publication topics and their focus which would offer insight into the specific evidence generated on tobacco control and regulation.

NIH Primary and Secondary Prevention Research in Humans: a Portfolio Analysis of Study Designs Used in 2012-2019.

We can learn a great deal about the research questions being addressed in a field by examining the study designs used in that field. This manuscript examines the research questions being addressed in prevention research by characterizing the distribution and trends of study designs included in primary and secondary prevention research supported by the National Institutes of Health through grants and cooperative agreements, together with the types of prevention research, populations, rationales, exposures, and outcomes associated with each type of design. The Office of Disease Prevention developed a taxonomy to classify new extramural NIH-funded research projects and created a database with a representative sample of 14,523 research projects for fiscal years 2012-2019. The data were weighted to represent the entirety of the extramural research portfolio. Leveraging this dataset, the Office of Disease Prevention characterized the study designs proposed in NIH-funded primary and secondary prevention research applications. The most common study designs proposed in new NIH-supported prevention research applications during FY12-19 were observational designs (63.3%, 95% CI 61.5%-65.0%), analysis of existing data (44.5%, 95% CI: 42.7-46.3), methods research (23.9%, 95% CI: 22.3-25.6), and randomized interventions (17.2%, 95% CI: 16.1%-18.4%). Observational study designs dominated primary prevention research, while intervention designs were more common in secondary prevention research. Observational designs were more common for exposures that would be difficult to manipulate (e.g., genetics, chemical toxin, and infectious disease (not pneumonia/influenza or HIV/AIDS)), while intervention designs were more common for exposures that would be easier to manipulate (e.g., education/counseling, medication/device, diet/nutrition, and healthcare delivery). Intervention designs were not common for outcomes that are rare or have a long latency (e.g., cancer, neurological disease, Alzheimer's disease) and more common for outcomes that are more common or where effects would be expected earlier (e.g., healthcare delivery, health related quality of life, substance use, and medication/device). Observational designs and analyses of existing data dominated, suggesting that much of the prevention research funded by NIH continues to focus on questions of association and on questions of identification of risk and protective factors. Randomized and non-randomized intervention designs were included far less often, suggesting that a much smaller fraction of the NIH prevention research portfolio is focused on questions of whether interventions can be used to modify risk or protective factors or to change some other health-related biomedical or behavioral outcome. The much heavier focus on observational studies is surprising given how much we know already about the leading risk factors for death and disability in the USA, because those risk factors account for 74% of the county-level mortality in the USA, and because they play such a vital role in the development of clinical and public health guidelines, whose developers often weigh results from randomized trials much more heavily than results from observational studies. Improvements in death and disability nationwide are more likely to derive from guidelines based on intervention research to address the leading risk factors than from additional observational studies.

NIH Tobacco Research and the Emergence of Tobacco Regulatory Science.

INTRODUCTION: This study explores how the emergence of FDA-funded Tobacco Regulatory Science (TRS) research complements and perhaps influenced the direction of tobacco research supported by NIH. AIMS AND METHODS: New NIH- and FDA-funded tobacco projects awarded in fiscal years (FY) 2011-2020 were identified using internal NIH databases of awarded grants. Project abstracts and research aims were coded by the authors to characterize research domains and tobacco products studied. RESULTS: Between FY 2011 and 2020, NIH funded 1032 and FDA funded 322 new tobacco projects. For the years and grant activity codes studied, the number of new NIH tobacco projects declined while FDA's increased; combined the number of new projects held steady. Much of NIH research included smoking combustibles (43.7%). The most common products in FDA research were cigarettes (74.8%) and e-cigarettes/ENDS (48.1%). Most NIH (58.6%) and FDA (67.7%) projects included research on the determinants of tobacco use. Another area of apparent overlap was health effects (29.5% NIH and 30.1% FDA). Projects unique to NIH included treatment interventions (33.3%), disease pathology/progression (17.8%) and neurobiology (18.9%). A minority of both NIH and FDA projects included populations particularly vulnerable to tobacco product use. CONCLUSIONS: In total, support for new tobacco research supported by NIH and FDA combined remained steady for the time period covered, though there was a concomitant decline in NIH tobacco projects with the increase in FDA-funded TRS projects for the activity codes studied. Despite the apparent overlap in some areas, both NIH and FDA support research that is unique to their respective missions. IMPLICATIONS: NIH continues to support tobacco research that falls within and outside of FDA's regulatory authorities. This research still is needed not only to bolster the evidence base for regulatory decisions at the national and state levels, but also to advance a comprehensive scientific agenda that can inform multiple levels of influence on tobacco control, use and addiction. It will be important to continue monitoring FDA-funded TRS and NIH-funded tobacco research portfolios to ensure that the level of support for and focus of the research is sufficient to address the burden of tobacco-related morbidity and mortality.

New NIH Primary and Secondary Prevention Research During 2012-2019.

INTRODUCTION: This manuscript characterizes primary and secondary prevention research in humans and related methods research funded by NIH in 2012‒2019. METHODS: The NIH Office of Disease Prevention updated its prevention research taxonomy in 2019‒2020 and applied it to a sample of 14,523 new extramural projects awarded in 2012-2019. All projects were coded manually for rationale, exposures, outcomes, population focus, study design, and type of prevention research. All results are based on that manual coding. RESULTS: Taxonomy updates resulted in a slight increase, from an average of 16.7% to 17.6%, in the proportion of prevention research awards for 2012‒2017; there was a further increase to 20.7% in 2019. Most of the leading risk factors for death and disability in the U.S. were observed as an exposure or outcome in <5% of prevention research projects in 2019 (e.g., diet, 3.7%; tobacco, 3.9%; blood pressure, 2.8%; obesity, 4.4%). Analysis of existing data became more common (from 36% to 46.5%), whereas randomized interventions became less common (from 20.5% to 12.3%). Randomized interventions addressing a leading risk factor in a minority health or health disparities population were uncommon. CONCLUSIONS: The number of new NIH awards classified as prevention research increased to 20.7% in 2019. New projects continued to focus on observational studies and secondary data analysis in 2018 and 2019. Additional research is needed to develop and test new interventions or develop methods for the dissemination of existing interventions, which address the leading risk factors, particularly in minority health and health disparities populations.

International Alzheimer's Disease Research Portfolio (IADRP) aims to capture global Alzheimer's disease research funding.

Alzheimer's disease (AD) is a recognized international public health crisis. There is an urgent need for public and private funding agencies around the world to coordinate funding strategies and leverage existing resources to enhance and expand support of AD research. To capture and compare their existing investments in AD research and research-related resources, major funding organizations are starting to utilize the Common Alzheimer's Disease Research Ontology (CADRO) to categorize their funding information. This information is captured in the International Alzheimer's Disease Research Portfolio (IADRP) for further analysis. As of January, 2014, over fifteen organizations from the US, Canada, Europe and Australia have contributed their information. The goal of the IADRP project is to enable funding organizations to assess the changing landscape of AD research and coordinate strategies, leverage resources, and avoid duplication of effort.

Common Alzheimer's Disease Research Ontology: National Institute on Aging and Alzheimer's Association collaborative project.

Alzheimer's disease is recognized as a public health crisis worldwide. As public and private funding agencies around the world enhance and expand their support of Alzheimer's disease research, there is an urgent need to coordinate funding strategies and leverage resources to maximize the impact on public health and avoid duplication of effort and inefficiency. Such coordination requires a comprehensive assessment of the current landscape of Alzheimer's disease research in the United States and internationally. To this end, the National Institute on Aging at the National Institutes of Health and the Alzheimer's Association developed the Common Alzheimer's Disease Research Ontology (CADRO) as a dynamic portfolio analysis tool that can be used by funding agencies worldwide for strategic planning and coordination.

Challenges and opportunities in advancing models of care for older adults: an assessment of the National Institute on Aging research portfolio.

OBJECTIVES: To identify existing projects supported by the National Institute on Aging (NIA) that may relate to the recommendations for models of care (MOCs) presented in the 2008 Institute of Medicine Report, Retooling for an Aging America: Building the Healthcare Workforce. DESIGN: Cross-sectional analysis of NIA's grant portfolio. SETTING: NIA. PARTICIPANTS: NIA grantees. MEASUREMENTS: NIA's grant portfolio was queried for the period 1999 to 2008 using a variety of search terms related to MOCs. Inclusion criteria were adherence to guiding principles for MOCs (comprehensive care, efficient care, older person as an active partner) or focus on innovative feature(s) of MOCs (interdisciplinary care, care management, chronic disease self-management, pharmaceutical management, preventive home visits, proactive rehabilitation, transitional care). Exclusion criteria were lack of focus on an intervention and focus on informal caregivers. Expert NIA staff reviewed and validated projects. RESULTS: One hundred thirty-five grants were identified. These grants represent fewer than 1% of the approximate number of grants NIA has funded over this same period of time (∼24,000 grants). Forty-four percent focused on components of comprehensive care and 34% on active involvement of older adults. Approximately half specifically focused on innovative features of MOCs, ranging from chronic disease self-management (32%) and proactive rehabilitation (26%) to preventive home visits (1%) and transitional care (1%). The majority of projects were investigator-initiated grants (46%). CONCLUSION: NIA has supported the development of many interventions that include components of MOCs related to recommendations from the IOM report. The challenge for the future will be determining which of the many components of comprehensive care systems are most effective for which subsets of the elderly population and assessing opportunities for enhanced collaboration between public and private aging research stakeholders.