Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 4.562
Filtrar
1.
Science ; 383(6690): 1401, 2024 Mar 29.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38547273
2.
Cancer Epidemiol Biomarkers Prev ; 33(2): 179-182, 2024 02 06.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38317628

RESUMO

Scientific research requires a substantial investment of time, effort, and money by researchers and funders. The funding that would be needed for all meritorious proposals far exceeds available resources. Major funding organizations use a multistep process for allocating research dollars that follows and extends beyond scientific peer review with considerations including mission priority, budget, and potential duplication of past or ongoing research activities. At the level of programmatic review, the process tends to be less proscribed than scientific review, but considerations relate to and are akin to basic value-driven economic principles. We propose a framework that encompasses the elements of programmatic review and provide examples of how the economic principles of opportunity costs, diminishing marginal productivity, sunk costs, economic optimization, return on investment, and option value apply to both research planning and funding decisions. Examples use cancer control population science research, as the nature of observational and interventional research involves large population studies (large sample size, recruitment, and often long-duration follow-up costs) which demand a high level of resource utilization; the same principles can be applied throughout medical and population health research. Awareness of the aspects of programmatic review and context to focus discussion regarding funding decisions may help guide research planning, decision-making, and increase transparency of the overall review process.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica , Projetos de Pesquisa , Humanos , Pesquisa Biomédica/economia
3.
Trials ; 25(1): 105, 2024 Feb 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38310290

RESUMO

Many research funders have invested billions of US dollars in building research capacity in sub-Saharan Africa (SSA). Despite these colossal investments, many well-intentioned and designed clinical research projects have either failed to kick off or ended abruptly. Although obstacles to clinical research in SSA are well known, there is limited information on frameworks and tools that can be used to anticipate and avert these systemic bottlenecks, particularly those related to socio-politics. In this paper, we leveraged lessons from entrepreneurs and development experts in harsh and uncertain business environments to develop a framework for anticipating and addressing potential bottlenecks to clinical research in SSA. More so, to illustrate and build a case for this framework, we shared our experience in supporting clinicians and regulators to adopt a point-of-use care tool, the "chemoPAD," to screen for the quality of anticancer medications rapidly and systematically in Cameroon despite resistance from some stakeholders. The critical steps in this framework involve identifying stakeholders, categorizing them based on their potential reactions to the study (adversary, supporters, and indifferents), and developing critical strategies to engage or deal with each stakeholder's reactions, starting with adversaries. This approach may be useful in complex research projects, especially clinical trials, which often involve many stakeholders with different interests and perceptions.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica , Humanos , África Subsaariana , Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , Pesquisa Biomédica/tendências , Fortalecimento Institucional , Empreendedorismo
4.
Science ; 383(6678): 16-17, 2024 01 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-38175876

RESUMO

Improving patient care is top priority for head of world's largest biomedical research funder.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , Assistência ao Paciente , Humanos , Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economia
8.
Science ; 382(6667): 142-143, 2023 10 13.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37824673
10.
JAMA ; 329(24): 2189-2190, 2023 06 27.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-37367985

RESUMO

This study uses National Institutes of Health RePORTER data for mentored K awards and R01-equivalent grants to all departments in US schools of medicine to characterize K-award distribution and K-to-R transition by gender and department between 1997 and 2021.


Assuntos
Distinções e Prêmios , Pesquisa Biomédica , Financiamento Governamental , Mentores , Humanos , Pesquisa Biomédica/classificação , Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , Financiamento Governamental/economia , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , Estados Unidos , Fatores Sexuais
18.
Science ; 379(6635): 869, 2023 03 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36862773

RESUMO

Women and Black researchers are less likely to hold multiple NIH grants.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica , Negro ou Afro-Americano , Organização do Financiamento , Mulheres , Feminino , Humanos , Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)
19.
Eur J Orthop Surg Traumatol ; 33(3): 533-540, 2023 Apr.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-36752822

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Musculoskeletal (MSK) injuries are one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Despite improvements in trauma-related morbidity and mortality in high-income countries over recent years, outcomes following MSK injuries in low- and middle-income countries, such as South Africa (SA), have not. Despite governmental recognition that this is required, funding and research into this significant health burden are limited within SA. This study aims to identify research priorities within MSK trauma care using a consensus-based approach amongst MSK healthcare practitioners within SA. METHOD: Members from the Orthopaedic Research Collaboration in Africa (ORCA), based in SA, collaborated using a two round modified Delphi technique to form a consensus on research priorities within orthopaedic trauma care. Members involved in the process were orthopaedic healthcare practitioners within SA. RESULTS: Participants from the ORCA network, working within SA, scored research priorities across two Delphi rounds from low to high priority. We have published the overall top 10 research priorities for this Delphi process. Questions were focused on two broad groups-clinical effectiveness in trauma care and general trauma public health care. Both groups were represented by the top two priorities, with the highest ranked question regarding the overall impact of trauma in SA and the second regarding the clinical treatment of open fractures. CONCLUSION: This study has defined research priorities within orthopaedic trauma in South Africa. Our vision is that by establishing consensus on these research priorities, policy and research funding will be directed into these areas. This should ultimately improve musculoskeletal trauma care across South Africa and its significant health and socioeconomic impacts.


Assuntos
Sistema Musculoesquelético , Ortopedia , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto , Pesquisa , Humanos , Consenso , Atenção à Saúde , Ortopedia/organização & administração , Ortopedia/normas , Pesquisa/economia , Pesquisa/organização & administração , África do Sul , Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , Pesquisa Biomédica/organização & administração , Sistema Musculoesquelético/lesões , Ferimentos e Lesões , Técnica Delfos , Fraturas Expostas , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/economia , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/organização & administração
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA
...