Your browser doesn't support javascript.
loading
Mostrar: 20 | 50 | 100
Resultados 1 - 20 de 1.529
Filtrar
3.
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
5.
Heart Lung Circ ; 29(11): 1588-1595, 2020 Nov.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32839116

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Cardiovascular disease is the leading cause of death in Australia. Investment in research solutions has been demonstrated to yield health and a 9.8-fold return economic benefit. The sector, however, is severely challenged with success rates of traditional peer-reviewed funding in decline. Here, we aimed to understand the perceived challenges faced by the cardiovascular workforce in Australia prior to the COVID-19 pandemic. METHODS: We used an online survey distributed across Australian cardiovascular societies/councils, universities and research institutes over a period of 6 months during 2019, with 548 completed responses. Inclusion criteria included being an Australian resident or an Australian citizen who lived overseas, and a current or past student or employee in the field of cardiovascular research. RESULTS: The mean age of respondents was 42±13 years, 47% were male, 85% had a full-time position, and 40% were a group leader or laboratory head. Twenty-three per cent (23%) had permanent employment, and 82% of full-time workers regularly worked >40 hours/week. Sixty-eight per cent (68%) said they had previously considered leaving the cardiovascular research sector. If their position could not be funded in the next few years, a staggering 91% of respondents would leave the sector. Compared to PhD- and age-matched men, women were less likely to be a laboratory head and to feel they had a long-term career path as a cardiovascular researcher, while more women were unsure about future employment and had considered leaving the sector (all p<0.05). Greater job security (76%) and government and philanthropic investment in cardiovascular research (72%) were highlighted by responders as the main changes to current practices that would encourage them to stay. CONCLUSION: Strategic solutions, such as diversification of career pathways and funding sources, and moving from a competitive to a collaborative culture, need to be a priority to decrease reliance on government funding and allow cardiovascular researchers to thrive.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica , Doenças Cardiovasculares , Infecções por Coronavirus/epidemiologia , Administração Financeira , Pneumonia Viral/epidemiologia , Pesquisadores , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto , Recursos Humanos , Adulto , Austrália , Betacoronavirus , Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , Pesquisa Biomédica/organização & administração , Pesquisa Biomédica/tendências , Emprego/economia , Emprego/psicologia , Feminino , Administração Financeira/métodos , Administração Financeira/organização & administração , Administração Financeira/estatística & dados numéricos , Financiamento Governamental , Humanos , Masculino , Cultura Organizacional , Pandemias , Técnicas de Planejamento , Pesquisadores/economia , Pesquisadores/psicologia , Pesquisadores/estatística & dados numéricos , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/organização & administração , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/tendências , Inquéritos e Questionários , Recursos Humanos/estatística & dados numéricos
7.
Hosp Pract (1995) ; 48(4): 206-212, 2020 Oct.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32510254

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Physician hospitalists may participate in research and generate knowledge for evidence-based hospital practice. Despite this, physician hospitalists are primarily involved in patient care, and there is sparse information on barriers for their participation in research and if these barriers differ by career stage. METHODS: We conducted a survey of physician hospitalists at Mayo Clinic sites based in four states (Arizona, Florida, Minnesota, and Wisconsin). We surveyed physician hospitalists on demographics, academic rank, current research skills, barriers for participation in research, and research skills they aspire to acquire. Responses were summarized using descriptive statistics and categorized by early-career (<10 years), mid-career (10-20 years), and later-career (≥20 years) stages at Mayo Clinic. The survey was conducted from March to April 2019. RESULTS: Of 188 physician hospitalists, there was a 52% response rate with 71% in early career, 21% mid-career, and 7% late career, with 39% female. Physician hospitalists at early-career (90%), mid-career (76%), and later-career (71%) stages were interested in participating in research. Among physician hospitalists with ≤3 peer-reviewed publications, barriers for participation in research included lack of mentorship, time, research skills, and funding. Among physician hospitalists with ≥4 peer-reviewed publications, factors for research success included mentorship (89% early-career, 38% mid-career, 75% later-career; p = 0.002) and membership in a research team. Compared to mid- and later-career physician hospitalists, a higher proportion of early-career hospitalists was interested in acquiring skills to both critically review the literature (70% early-career, 43% mid-career, 0% later-career; p = 0.006) and write manuscripts (86% early-career, 57% mid-career, 50% later-career; p = 0.02); there was generally similar interest across career stages to acquire skills to conduct literature searches and write grants. CONCLUSION: The generally similar responses from physician hospitalists across career stages highlight system-level opportunities to increase research mentorship, promote the acquisition of research skills, and reduce barriers for participation in research.


Assuntos
Médicos Hospitalares/psicologia , Pesquisa/organização & administração , Sucesso Acadêmico , Adulto , Fatores Etários , Idoso , Feminino , Humanos , Masculino , Mentores/psicologia , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/organização & administração , Fatores Socioeconômicos , Fatores de Tempo
8.
West J Emerg Med ; 21(3): 595-599, 2020 Apr 16.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32421506

RESUMO

INTRODUCTION: To study diversity of researchers and barriers to success among Emergency Medicine Foundation (EMF) grant recipients in the last 10 years. METHODS: EMF grant awardees were approached to complete a brief survey, which included demographics, queries related to contributions to the literature, success in obtaining grants, and any perceived barriers they encountered. RESULTS: Of the 342 researchers contacted by email, a total of 147 completed the survey for a response rate of 43%. The respondents were predominately mid to late career white-male-heterosexual-Christian with an average age of 44 years (range 25-69 years of age). With regards to training and education, the majority of respondents (50%) were either Associate or Professor clinical rank (8% instructor/resident/fellow and 31% Assistant). Sixty-two percent of the respondents reported perceived barriers to career advancement since completion of residency. The largest perceived barrier to success was medical specialty (26%), followed by gender (21%) and age (16%). CONCLUSION: Our survey of EMF grant recipients in the last 10 years shows a considerable lack of diversity. The most commonly perceived barriers to career advancement by this cohort were medical specialty, gender, and age. An opportunity exists for further definition of barriers and development of mechanisms to overcome them, with a goal of increased success for those that are underrepresented.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica , Medicina de Emergência , Pesquisa sobre Serviços de Saúde , Pesquisadores , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto , Adulto , Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , Pesquisa Biomédica/organização & administração , Pesquisa Biomédica/tendências , Barreiras de Comunicação , Serviço Hospitalar de Emergência , Feminino , Pesquisa sobre Serviços de Saúde/economia , Pesquisa sobre Serviços de Saúde/organização & administração , Pesquisa sobre Serviços de Saúde/tendências , Humanos , Masculino , Pessoa de Meia-Idade , Pesquisadores/classificação , Pesquisadores/estatística & dados numéricos , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/métodos , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/organização & administração , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/estatística & dados numéricos , Estados Unidos
9.
Trials ; 21(1): 304, 2020 Apr 03.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32245506

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is a key determinant of success but is challenging. Trialists and UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) are increasingly exploring the use of digital tools to identify, recruit and retain participants. The aim of this UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) study was to identify what digital tools are currently used by CTUs and understand the performance characteristics required to be judged useful. METHODS: A scoping of searches (and a survey with NIHR funding staff), a survey with all 52 UKCRC CTUs and 16 qualitative interviews were conducted with five stakeholder groups including trialists within CTUs, funders and research participants. A purposive sampling approach was used to conduct the qualitative interviews during March-June 2018. Qualitative data were analysed using a content analysis and inductive approach. RESULTS: Responses from 24 (46%) CTUs identified that database-screening tools were the most widely used digital tool for recruitment, with the majority being considered effective. The reason (and to whom) these tools were considered effective was in identifying potential participants (for both Site staff and CTU staff) and reaching recruitment target (for CTU staff/CI). Fewer retention tools were used, with short message service (SMS) or email reminders to participants being the most reported. The qualitative interviews revealed five themes across all groups: 'security and transparency'; 'inclusivity and engagement'; 'human interaction'; 'obstacles and risks'; and 'potential benefits'. There was a high level of stakeholder acceptance of the use of digital tools to support trials, despite the lack of evidence to support them over more traditional techniques. Certain differences and similarities between stakeholder groups demonstrated the complexity and challenges of using digital tools for recruiting and retaining research participants. CONCLUSIONS: Our studies identified a range of digital tools in use in recruitment and retention of RCTs, despite the lack of high-quality evidence to support their use. Understanding the type of digital tools in use to support recruitment and retention will help to inform funders and the wider research community about their value and relevance for future RCTs. Consideration of further focused digital tool reviews and primary research will help to reduce gaps in the evidence base.


Assuntos
Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto/organização & administração , Eficiência Organizacional/normas , Seleção de Pacientes , Ensaios Clínicos Controlados Aleatórios como Assunto/métodos , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/economia , Ensaios Clínicos como Assunto/economia , Análise Custo-Benefício , Eficiência Organizacional/economia , Pesquisas sobre Serviços de Saúde , Humanos , Entrevistas como Assunto , Pesquisa Qualitativa , Pesquisadores/organização & administração , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/organização & administração , Literatura de Revisão como Assunto , Mídias Sociais , Software , Participação dos Interessados , Envio de Mensagens de Texto , Reino Unido
10.
JAMA Netw Open ; 3(3): e201737, 2020 03 02.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32219405

RESUMO

Importance: Sickle cell disease (SCD) and cystic fibrosis (CF) are severe autosomal recessive disorders associated with intermittent disease exacerbations that require hospitalizations, progressive chronic organ injury, and substantial premature mortality. Research funding is a limited resource and may contribute to health care disparities, especially for rare diseases that disproportionally affect economically disadvantaged groups. Objective: To compare disease-specific funding between SCD and CF and the association between funding and research productivity. Design, Setting, and Participants: This cross-sectional study examined federal and foundation funding, publications indexed in PubMed, clinical trials registered in ClinicalTrials.gov, and new drug approvals from January 1, 2008, to December 31, 2018, in an estimated US population of approximately 90 000 individuals with SCD and approximately 30 000 individuals with CF. Main Outcomes and Measures: Federal and foundation funding, publications indexed in PubMed, clinical trial registrations, and new drug approvals. Results: From 2008 through 2018, federal funding was greater per person with CF compared with SCD (mean [SD], $2807 [$175] vs $812 [$147]; P < .001). Foundation expenditures were greater for CF than for SCD (mean [SD], $7690 [$3974] vs $102 [$13.7]; P < .001). Significantly more research articles (mean [SD], 1594 [225] vs 926 [157]; P < .001) and US Food and Drug Administration drug approvals (4 vs 1) were found for CF compared with SCD, but the total number of clinical trials was similar (mean [SD], 27.3 [6.9] vs 23.8 [6.3]; P = .22). Conclusions and Relevance: The findings show that disparities in funding between SCD and CF may be associated with decreased research productivity and novel drug development for SCD. Increased federal and foundation funding is needed for SCD and other diseases that disproportionately affect economically disadvantaged groups to address health care disparities.


Assuntos
Anemia Falciforme/economia , Pesquisa Biomédica , Fibrose Cística/economia , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto , Anemia Falciforme/epidemiologia , Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , Pesquisa Biomédica/estatística & dados numéricos , Estudos Transversais , Fibrose Cística/epidemiologia , Desenvolvimento de Medicamentos/economia , Desenvolvimento de Medicamentos/estatística & dados numéricos , Fundações , Humanos , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/economia , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/organização & administração , Estados Unidos
12.
Health Res Policy Syst ; 18(1): 20, 2020 Feb 17.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32066463

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Data on grants for biomedical research by 10 major funders of health research were collected from the World RePORT platform to explore what is being funded, by whom and where. This analysis is part of the World Health Organization Global Observatory on Health Research and Development's work with the overall aim to enable evidence-informed deliberations and decisions on new investments in health research and development. The analysis expands on the interactive data visualisations of these data on the Observatory's website and describes the methods used to enable the categorisation of grants by health categories using automated data-mining techniques. METHODS: Grants data were extracted from the World RePORT platform for 2016, the most recent year with data from all funders. A data-mining algorithm was developed in Java to categorise grants by health category. The analysis explored the distribution of grants by funder, recipient country and organisation, type of grant, health category, average grant duration, and the nature of collaborations between recipients of direct grants and the institutions they collaborated with. RESULTS: Out of a total of 69,420 grants in 2016, the United States of America's National Institutes of Health funded the greatest number of grants (52,928; 76%) and had the longest average grant duration (6 years and 10 months). Grants for research constituted 70.4% (48,879) of all types of grants, followed by grants for training (13,008; 18.7%) and meetings (2907; 4.2%). Of grant recipients by income group, low-income countries received only 0.2% (165) of all grants. Almost three-quarters of all grants were for non-communicable diseases (72%; 40,035), followed by communicable, maternal, perinatal and nutritional conditions (20%; 11,123), and injuries (6%; 3056). Only 1.1% of grants were for neglected tropical diseases and 0.4% for priority diseases on the WHO list of highly infectious (R&D blueprint) pathogens. CONCLUSIONS: The findings highlight the importance of considering funding decisions by other actors in future health research and capacity-strengthening decisions. This will not only improve efficiency and equity in allocating scarce resources but will also allow informed investment decisions that aim to support research on public health needs and neglected areas.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica/organização & administração , Investimentos em Saúde/organização & administração , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/organização & administração , Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , Comportamento Cooperativo , Humanos , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/estatística & dados numéricos , Alocação de Recursos , Fatores de Tempo , Estados Unidos , Organização Mundial da Saúde
13.
Health Res Policy Syst ; 18(1): 22, 2020 Feb 18.
Artigo em Inglês | MEDLINE | ID: mdl-32070372

RESUMO

BACKGROUND: Health research has scientific, social and political impacts. To achieve such impacts, several institutions need to participate; however, health research funding institutions are seldom nominated in the literature as essential players. The attention they have received has so far focused mainly on their role in knowledge translation, informing policy-making and the need to organise health research systems. In this article, we will focus solely on the governance of national health research funding institutions. Our objectives are to identify the main functions of governance for such institutions and actionable governance functions. This research should be useful in several ways, including in highlighting, tracking and measuring the governance trends in a given funding institution, and to forestall low-level governance. METHODS: First, we reviewed existing frameworks in the grey literature, selecting seven relevant documents. Second, we developed an integrated framework for health research funding institution governance and management. Third, we extracted actionable information for governance by selecting a mix of North American, European and Asian institutions that had documentation available in English (e.g. annual report, legal status, strategy). RESULTS: The framework contains 13 functions - 5 dedicated to governance (intelligence acquisition, resourcing and instrumentation, relationships management, accountability and performance, and strategy formulation), 3 dedicated to management (priority-setting, financing and knowledge transfer), and 5 dedicated to transversal logics that apply to both governance and management (ethics, transparency, capacity reinforcement, monitoring and evaluation, and public engagement). CONCLUSIONS: Herein, we provide a conceptual contribution for scholars in the field of governance and health research as well as a practical contribution, with actionable functions for high-level managers in charge of the governance of health research funding institutions.


Assuntos
Pesquisa Biomédica/organização & administração , Órgãos Governamentais/organização & administração , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/organização & administração , Academias e Institutos/organização & administração , Pesquisa Biomédica/economia , Pesquisa Biomédica/normas , Saúde Global , Órgãos Governamentais/economia , Órgãos Governamentais/normas , Humanos , Propriedade Intelectual , Apoio à Pesquisa como Assunto/normas
SELEÇÃO DE REFERÊNCIAS
DETALHE DA PESQUISA