Biomedical and health research: an analysis of country participation and research fields in the EU's Horizon 2020

We analysed the Horizon 2020 project database, currently the European Union's (EU) largest framework programme for research and innovation-nearly 80 billion euros available over 7 years (2014-2020), to estimate the amount and type of EU-supported biomedical and health research and funding distribution among EU member states and non-European countries. Out of 20,877 projects as of 14th January 2019, a total of 4865 projects were classified as human health related. Ninety-four countries/territories worldwide participated in at least one biomedical project. The EU-15 original member states showed the highest participation as project leaders/partners and for acquired funding. Strong unequal funding distribution and participation between EU-15 and the 13 newest members-with EU-15 receiving about 87% of funding and EU-13 only 3%-have been evidenced. For both EU-15 and EU-13 we detected about 20% of projects involving the public and private sectors, according to Horizon 2020 guidelines. The largest percentage of projects was in the areas of biotechnological research (28.28%) and "basic research" (26.95%); these two sectors together accounted for 46.99% of the total funding assigned (7.9 billion euros). Research in neurosciences and neurological diseases appeared to be an increasing study area. Neurological and mental diseases covered about 21% of projects. Epidemiological studies accounted for about 5% of the total projects and for 14% of funding. Strong correlations were shown by indicators of financial and scientific capacity to identify success rates in obtaining EU funding, making the gap between countries with strong and weak research infrastructures difficult to overcome.

Bibliometric analysis of gaps in research on asbestos-related diseases: declining emphasis on public health over 26 years

OBJECTIVES

The global burden of asbestos-related diseases (ARDs) is significant, and most of the world's population live in countries where asbestos use continues. We examined the gaps between ARD research and suggestions of WHO and the International Labour Organization on prevention.

METHODS

From the Web of Science, we collected data on all articles published during 1991-2016 and identified a subset of ARD-related articles. We classified articles into three research areas-laboratory, clinical and public health-and examined their time trends. For all and the top 11 countries publishing ARD-related articles, we calculated the proportions of all ARD-related articles that were in each of the three areas, the average rates of ARD-related articles over all articles, and the average annual per cent changes of rates.

RESULTS

ARD-related articles (n=14 284) accounted for 1.3‰ of all articles in 1991, but this had declined to 0.8‰ by 2016. Among the three research areas, the clinical area accounted for the largest proportion (65.0%), followed by laboratory (26.5%) and public health (24.9%). The public health area declined faster than the other areas, at -5.7% per year. Discrepancies were also observed among the top 11 countries regarding emphasis on public health research, with Finland and Italy having higher, and China and the Netherlands lower, emphases.

CONCLUSIONS

There is declining emphasis on the public health area in the ARD-related literature. Under the ongoing global situation of ARD, primary prevention will remain key for some time, warranting efforts to rectify the current trend in ARD-related research.

Priority-setting in public health research funding organisations: an exploratory qualitative study among five high-profile funders

Background

Priority-driven funding streams for population and public health are an important part of the health research landscape and contribute to orienting future scholarship in the field. While research priorities are often made public through targeted calls for research, less is known about how research funding organisations arrive at said priorities. Our objective was to explore how public health research funding organisations develop priorities for strategic extramural research funding programmes.

Methods

Content analysis of published academic and grey literature and key informant interviews for five public and private funders of public health research in the United Kingdom, Australia, the United States and France were performed.

Results

We found important distinctions in how funding organisations processed potential research priorities through four non-sequential phases, namely idea generation, idea analysis, idea socialisation and idea selection. Funders generally involved the public health research community and public health decision-makers in idea generation and socialisation, but other groups of stakeholders (e.g. the public, advocacy organisations) were not as frequently included.

Conclusions

Priority-setting for strategic funding programmes in public health research involves consultation mainly with researchers in the early phase of the process. There is an opportunity for greater breadth of participation and more transparency in priority-setting mechanisms for strategic funding programmes in population and public health research.

Electronic supplementary material

The online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-018-0335-8) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

Mapping health research capacity in 17 countries of the former Soviet Union and south-eastern Europe: an exploratory study

BACKGROUND

Policies to improve health status, tackle disease and ensure equitable access to healthcare should be informed by evidence derived from high-quality research. However, health research capacity is unevenly distributed across countries, as revealed by mapping exercises that have been undertaken to provide a basis for concerted action to strengthen capacity. This study systematically describes capacity to undertake health research in the countries of the former Soviet Union and south-eastern Europe and identifies the elements required to create a national health research system.

METHODS

The mapping exercise comprised two elements: a survey of key informants in the respective countries and a bibliometric analysis of scientific publications in the field of public health.

RESULTS

Our results confirm that health research remains a low priority in some countries of the WHO European Region. In these countries, most of the literature was produced by researchers outside the country, often to inform international donors.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides important information for countries seeking to initiate action to strengthen their research capacity. There is a need for a comprehensive strategy with sustained investment in training and career development of researchers. There is also a need to create new funding systems to provide financial support to those undertaking policy-relevant research. International collaboration and investment in mechanisms to bridge the gap between research and policy are urgently required.