Para que nada ni nadie se quede sin investigar: la Acción Estratégica en Salud (AES) en el contexto del fomento y promoción de la I+D+i biosanitarias / Bringing everyone and every subject into the research fold: the Strategic Action for Health and the funding of biomedical research, development, and innovation

La investigación en biomedicina es una actividad necesaria para el éxito de cualquier estrategia que se proponga mejorar la salud de los ciudadanos. La investigación en salud que España pueda realizar hoy sentará las bases del desarrollo de nuestra biomedicina del mañana. En este artículo se tiene en cuenta el modelo multinivel en el que se desarrollan las políticas públicas en materia de I+D+i en biomedicina. Se toma en consideración que los profesionales de la medicina de urgencias y emergencias se han movido tradicionalmente en el área de la práctica clínica y han estado apartados de la investigación. Se ofrece un panorama global de las ayudas destinadas al fomento de la investigación biomédica desde la Administración General del Estado. Estas ayudas se articulan a través de la Acción Estratégica en Salud (AES) gestionada por el Instituto de Salud Carlos III (ISCIII), agencia financiadora de la investigación del Ministerio de Ciencia e Innovación. Se hace énfasis en los objetivos de la AES y los retos a los que se enfrenta el Sistema Nacional de Salud en relación a la investigación. Se describe someramente el ciclo de vida de las ayudas a la investigación. Para finalizar se describen de forma pormenorizada los Subprogramas de la AES de la línea proyectos de investigación y de la Línea Recursos humanos (AU)

Biomedical research is an essential part of any strategy that seeks to improve the health of citizens. The research done in Spain today will provide the basis for developing our medical practices in the future. This paper considers the multilevel model that provides the basis for public policies on how biomedical research, development and innovation projects are funded. We discuss the situation of emergency medical specialists, who have traditionally focused on clinical practice rather than research. We also provide an overview of government biomedical research grants channeled through the Strategic Action for Health (AES), which is administered by the Carlos III Health Institute (ISCIII), the funding agency of the Ministry of Science and Innovation. Emphasis is placed on the goals of the AES and the research challenges the National Health Service faces. The life cycle of a research grant is described briefly. Finally, the AES subprograms in two lines, research and human resources, are described in detail (AU)

[Analysis of evaluation process of research projects submitted to the Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria, Spain]. / Análisis del proceso evaluador de los proyectos de investigación en el Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria.

BACKGROUND: At the present time it seems very clear that research improvement is both an unquestionable fact and the right way to develop technological innovation, services and patents. However, such improvement and corresponding finances needs to be done under fine and rigorous evaluation process as an assessment tool under which all the research projects applying to a public or private call for proposals should be submitted to assure a coherence point according to the investment to be made. At this end, the main target of this work has been focused to analysis and study the evaluation process traditionally made by Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria (FIS) as well as to propose most adequate modifications. MATERIAL AND METHOD: A sample of 431 research projects corresponding to year 1998 proposal was analysed. The evaluation from FIS and ANEP (National Evaluation and Prospective Agency) was evaluated and scored (evaluation quality) in its main contents by 3 independent evaluators, the showed results submitted to a comparative frame between these agencies at indoor (FIS) and outdoor (FIS/ANEP) level. RESULTS: FIS evaluation had 20 commissions or areas of knowledge. The analysis indoor (FIS) clearly showed that evaluation quality was correlated to the assigned commission (F = 3.71; p < 0.001) and to the time last of the researched proposal (F = 3.42; p < 0.05) but no related to the evaluator. On the other hand, the quality of ANEP evaluation showed a correlated dependency of the three mentioned facts. In all terms, the ANEP evaluation was better than FIS for the three years time projects, but in did not show significant differences in one or two years time projects. In all cases, the evaluation with final results as negative (financing denied) showed an average quality higher than positive evaluation. CONCLUSIONS: The obtained results advice about the convenience of making some changes in the evaluative structure and to review the sort of FIS technical commissions focusing an improvement of the evaluation process.