Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 23.918
Filtrar
2.
Lancet Glob Health ; 8(10): e1295-e1304, 2020 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32971052

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Each year, billions of US$ are spent globally on infectious disease research and development. However, there is little systematic tracking of global research and development. We present research on investments into infectious diseases research from funders in the G20 countries across an 18-year time period spanning 2000-17, comparing amounts invested for different conditions and considering the global burden of disease to identify potential areas of relative underfunding. METHODS: The study examined research awards made between 2000 and 2017 for infectious disease research from G20-based public and philanthropic funders. We searched research databases using a range of keywords, and open access data were extracted from funder websites. Awards were categorised by type of science, specialty, and disease or pathogen. Data collected included study title, abstract, award amount, funder, and year. We used descriptive statistics and Spearman's correlation coefficient to investigate the association between research investment and disease burden, using Global Burden of Disease 2017 study data. FINDINGS: The final 2000-17 dataset included 94 074 awards for infectious disease research, with a sum investment of $104·9 billion (annual range 4·1 billion to 8·4 billion) and a median award size of $257 176 (IQR 62 562-770 661). Pre-clinical research received $61·1 billion (58·2%) across 70 337 (74·8%) awards and public health research received $29·5 billion (28·1%) from 19 197 (20·4%) awards. HIV/AIDS received $42·1 billion (40·1%), tuberculosis received $7·0 billion (6·7%), malaria received $5·6 billion (5·3%), and pneumonia received $3·5 billion (3·3%). Funding for Ebola virus ($1·2 billion), Zika virus ($0·3 billion), influenza ($4·4 billion), and coronavirus ($0·5 billion) was typically highest soon after a high-profile outbreak. There was a general increase in year-on-year investment in infectious disease research between 2000 and 2006, with a decline between 2007 and 2017. Funders based in the USA provided $81·6 billion (77·8%). Based on funding per 2017 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), HIV/AIDS received the greatest relative investment ($772 per DALY), compared with tuberculosis ($156 per DALY), malaria ($125 per DALY), and pneumonia ($33 per DALY). Syphilis and scabies received the least relative investment (both $9 per DALY). We observed weak positive correlation (r=0·30) between investment and 2017 disease burden. INTERPRETATION: HIV research received the highest amount of investment relative to DALY burden. Scabies and syphilis received the lowest relative funding. Investments for high-threat pathogens (eg, Ebola virus and coronavirus) were often reactive and followed outbreaks. We found little evidence that funding is proactively guided by global burden or pandemic risk. Our findings show how research investments are allocated and how this relates to disease burden and diseases with pandemic potential. FUNDING: Bill & Melinda Gates Foundation.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , Doenças Transmissíveis/economia , Saúde Global/economia , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Humanos , Cooperação Internacional
5.
Pediatrics ; 146(4)2020 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32943534

RESUMO

The National Institutes of Health's Environmental Influences on Child Health Outcomes (ECHO) program aims to study high-priority and high-impact pediatric conditions. This broad-based health initiative is unique in the National Institutes of Health research portfolio and involves 2 research components: (1) a large group of established centers with pediatric cohorts combining data to support longitudinal studies (ECHO cohorts) and (2) pediatric trials program for institutions within Institutional Development Awards states, known as the ECHO Institutional Development Awards States Pediatric Clinical Trials Network (ISPCTN). In the current presentation, we provide a broad overview of the ISPCTN and, particularly, its importance in enhancing clinical trials capabilities of pediatrician scientists through the support of research infrastructure, while at the same time implementing clinical trials that inform future health care for children. The ISPCTN research mission is aligned with the health priority conditions emphasized in the ECHO program, with a commitment to bringing state-of-the-science trials to children residing in underserved and rural communities. ISPCTN site infrastructure is critical to successful trial implementation and includes research training for pediatric faculty and coordinators. Network sites exist in settings that have historically had limited National Institutes of Health funding success and lacked pediatric research infrastructure, with the initial funding directed to considerable efforts in professional development, implementation of regulatory procedures, and engagement of communities and families. The Network has made considerable headway with these objectives, opening two large research studies during its initial 18 months as well as producing findings that serve as markers of success that will optimize sustainability.


Assuntos
Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto/organização & administração , Área Carente de Assistência Médica , Pediatria , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/organização & administração , População Rural , Fortalecimento Institucional , Saúde da Criança , Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto/economia , Educação Continuada , Humanos , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/economia , Estados Unidos
6.
Am J Phys Med Rehabil ; 99(10): 909-916, 2020 10.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32960528

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Sponsorship bias could affect research results to inform decision makers when using the results of these trials. The extent to which sponsorship bias affect results in the field of physical therapy has been unexplored in the literature. Therefore, the main aim of this study was to evaluate the influence of sponsorship bias on the treatment effects of randomized controlled trials in physical therapy area. METHODS: This was a meta-epidemiological study. A random sample of randomized controlled trials included in meta-analyses of physical therapy area were identified. Data extraction including assessments of appropriate influence of funders was conducted independently by two reviewers. To determine the association between biases related to sponsorship biases and effect sizes, a two-level analysis was conducted using a meta-meta-analytic approach. RESULTS: We analyzed 393 trials included in 43 meta-analyses. The most common sources of sponsorship for this sample of physical therapy trials were government (n = 205, 52%), followed by academic (n = 44, 11%) and industry (n = 39, 10%). The funding was not declared in a high percentage of the trials (n = 85, 22%). The influence of the trial sponsor was assessed as being appropriate in 246 trials (63%) and considered inappropriate/unclear in 147 (37%) of them. We have moderate evidence to say that trials with inappropriate/unclear influence of funders tended to have on average a larger effect size than those with appropriate influence of funding (effect size = 0.15; 95% confidence interval = -0.03 to 0.33). CONCLUSIONS: Based on our sample of physical therapy trials, it seems that most of the trials are funded by either government and academia and a small percentage are funded by the industry. Treatment effect size estimates were on average 0.15 larger in trials with lack of appropriate influence of funders as compared with trials with appropriate influence of funding. Contrarily to other fields, industry funding was relatively small and their influence perhaps less marked. All these results could be explained by the relative youth of the field and/or the absence of clear industry interests. In front of the call for action by the World Health Organization to strengthen rehabilitation in health systems, these results raise the issue of the need of public funding in the field.


Assuntos
Modalidades de Fisioterapia , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto , Projetos de Pesquisa , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto , Humanos
17.
S Afr Med J ; 110(4): 274-283, 2020 Mar 30.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32657738

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Over the past 18 years, the South African (SA) Ministry of Health has committed to allocate 2% of the national health budget to research, while the National Health Research Policy (2001) proposed that the health research budget should be 2% of total public sector health expenditure. A review was conducted by the National Health Research Committee (NHRC) in 2014 to determine whether these goals had been met, using available data up to 2009/10. It revealed that public sector health research funding remained below 2% of the national health budget, supporting the perception of reduced public sector health research funding. OBJECTIVES: To provide an update on the previous review to investigate changes in the health research landscape since 2009/10 and whether goals have been met. METHODS: Various publicly available sources of information on public and private expenditure on health research in SA were used to investigate health research funding and expenditure. In addition, questionnaires were sent to 35 major national and international funders of health research in SA to obtain data on the level of funding provided and the fields of research funded. RESULTS: Total health research expenditure in SA was ZAR6.9 billion in 2016/17, or 19.2% of gross expenditure on research and development, with 1.7% of the ZAR38.6 billion National Department of Health budget from National Treasury being spent on health research through the South African Medical Research Council (ZAR658 million), corresponding to 0.4% of the consolidated government expenditure on health. However, although the total government plus science council spend on health research in 2016/17 was ZAR1.45 billion, this represents just 0.033% of the gross domestic product (GDP), thus remaining well below the aspirational target of 0.15% of the GDP set by the NHRC in 2014. Based on feedback from the funders, the estimated baseline health research funding in 2016/17 was in excess of ZAR4.1 billion, which is considerably higher than many researchers may realise. Three-quarters of this funding originated from foreign sources, suggesting both strengths and opportunities for health research in SA, but also highlighting increasing dependence on foreign funding. Notably, the majority of funders approached were not able to readily break down expenditure according to disease area. CONCLUSIONS: Health research funding has changed significantly since our previous review, although the government's own commitments to it remain unmet. Improved mechanisms to track health research expenditure are urgently required for better alignment of funding priorities and increased co-ordination between science councils in health research funding.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , Governo , Gastos em Saúde/tendências , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/economia , Pesquisa Biomédica/tendências , Orçamentos , Educação/economia , Humanos , Organizações/economia , Organizações sem Fins Lucrativos/economia , Setor Privado/economia , Setor Público/economia , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/tendências , África do Sul
18.
Am J Law Med ; 46(2-3): 275-296, 2020 05.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32659196

RESUMO

Corporate influence is one of the most pressing issues in public health. It cuts across many of our most intractable problems-from obesity to the opioid epidemic. Companies develop close relationships with public health agencies, research universities, academic medical centers, professional societies, and patient advocacy organizations-often funding medical research and public health interventions intended to address the very challenges these corporations are creating or exacerbating. How we view relationships with industry, including how these relationships are framed in ethical discourse, shapes our legal and policy responses to them. In recent years, fueled in part by the opioid epidemic, the ethical framing of industry relationships has begun to evolve in significant ways. But legal and policy responses have not yet caught up. In this article, I develop a temporal account of corporate influence, and legal and policy responses to corporate influence. This account clarifies the limitations and adverse effects of conflicts of interest disclosure, especially when implemented as the sole legal or policy response. Disclosure can illuminate corporate influence-but policymakers cannot and should not rely on disclosure to eliminate corporate influence or its effects. Nor should we allow disclosure to crowd out structural and systemic responses to corporate influence-including sequestration of and separation from private-sector entities.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica/legislação & jurisprudência , Revelação/legislação & jurisprudência , Ética nos Negócios , Formulação de Políticas , Saúde Pública/legislação & jurisprudência , Conflito de Interesses , Humanos , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/legislação & jurisprudência , Estados Unidos
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA