Matching taxpayer funding to population health needs: not so simple

Funding priorities and health outcomes in Danish medical research

External research funding is an essential component of the infrastructure of modern, academic research. Priorities in funding decisions drive what knowledge is generated, and how scientists' careers are shaped. For health research, it can ultimately have implications for health outcomes. The aim of this paper is to illustrate how funding information can be used to track priorities in health research, linking them to disease burdens and research outputs. Furthermore, funding concentrations are analysed from both researcher and disease perspectives, to estimate the influence of personal Matthew-effects on the distribution of health research funding. Denmark is used as the case, including funding information from all major public and private research foundations in the period 2004-2016. Grant information is linked to research outputs and disability-adjusted life-years (DALY rates), for 34,160 publications linked to 2630 grants, receiving DKK 4.8 billion in funding. Data show poor correlation between funding priorities, research activity and disease burdens, with several diseases receiving disproportionate amounts of funding. A research opportunity index is calculated to identify diseases with the highest potential for future investments from a burden-centred point of view. Funding is highly concentrated, both on people and on specific diseases. High funding concentrations on researchers can be a driving factor behind the observed funding-to-burden imbalances, and may risk knowledge stagnation through monopolisation of the market place of ideas. Results indicate that funders of clinical and translational research, as well as some types of biomedical research, need to supplement traditional considerations of scientific excellence with measures of societal challenges and relevance.

Evolving Trends in Physiotherapy Research Publications between 1995 and 2015

Purpose: The aim of this study was to comparatively analyze evolving trends in physiotherapy (PT) research publications (excluding case reports and epidemiological and qualitative studies) between 1995 and 2015, inclusively in terms of research design, funding support, age groups, and health conditions. Method: This was an observational study using PubMed-indexed data. Combinations of medical subject headings identified yearly research publications for PT and comparator fields: human-based health and physical rehabilitation. Yearly publications data were extracted, relative percentages were computed, and linear or exponential regressions examined the yearly growth in the proportion of research publications over these 2 decades. Results: As a percentage of human-based health research publications, PT research publications grew exponentially: from 0.54% in 1995 to 2.37% in 2015 (r² = 0.97; p < 0.01). As a percentage of physical rehabilitation research publications, PT research grew from 38.2% in 1995 to 58.7% in 2015 (r² = 0.89; p < 0.01). Randomized controlled trials (RCTs) resulted in the majority of PT research publications (from 45.1% in 1995 to 59.4% in 2015; r² = 0.79; p < 0.01). Rates of declared funding increased (from 29.7% in 1995 to 57% in 2015; r² = 0.83; p < 0.01), but the comparator fields had similar growth. The percentage of PT research publications remained stable for most health conditions and age groups, decreased for those aged 0-18 years (p = 0.012) and for cardiovascular and pulmonary conditions (both p < 0.01), and increased for neoplasms (p < 0.01). Conclusions: PT research publications have become more prevalent among health and physical rehabilitation research publications; the majority of publications report on RCTs.

Public funding for medical research in relation to the burden of disease caused by cardiovascular diseases and neoplasms in Germany

BACKGROUND

Public funding for medical research in Germany is primarily provided by the German Research Foundation (DFG) and the Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF). The aim of this study was to analyze the amount of national public funding for medical research on predominant causes of death in Germany, cardiovascular diseases and neoplasms, in relation to the burden of these diseases in Germany.

METHODS

Three evaluators categorized medical research projects funded by the DFG or BMBF between 2010 and 2012 into the categories "Diseases of the circulatory system" (with subgroups "Ischemic heart diseases", "Heart failure" and "Cerebrovascular diseases") and "Neoplasms". The total amount of public funding by the national agencies was analyzed in relation to the burden of disease for the respective disease condition.

RESULTS

Information on national public funding for medical research of 2091 million euros was available; of those, 246.8 million euros (11.8%) were categorized being spent for research on "Neoplasms", 118.4 million euros (5.7%) for research on "Diseases of the circulatory system". This results in 362.08 euros per case of death, 16.58 euros per year of life lost (YLL) and 16.04 euros per disability-adjusted life year (DALY) for "Neoplasms" and in 113.44 euros per case of death, 8.05 euros per YLL and 7.17 euros per DALY for "Diseases of the circulatory system".

CONCLUSIONS

In Germany, research on cardiovascular diseases receives a lower share of national public funding for medical research compared to oncological research. These results are comparable to other European countries.

What can we do about exploratory analyses in clinical trials?

The research community has alternatively embraced then repudiated exploratory analyses since the inception of clinical trials in the middle of the twentieth century. After a series of important but ultimately unreproducible findings, these non-prospectively declared evaluations were relegated to hypothesis generating. Since the majority of evaluations conducted in clinical trials with their rich data sets are exploratory, the absence of their persuasive power adds to the inefficiency of clinical trial analyses in an atmosphere of fiscal frugality. However, the principle argument against exploratory analyses is not based in statistical theory, but pragmatism and observation. The absence of any theoretical treatment of exploratory analyses postpones the day when their statistical weaknesses might be repaired. Here, we introduce examination of the characteristics of exploratory analyses from a probabilistic and statistical framework. Setting the obvious logistical concerns aside (i.e., the absence of planning produces poor precision), exploratory analyses do not appear to suffer from estimation theory weaknesses. The problem appears to be a difficulty in what is actually reported as the p-value. The use of Bayes Theorem provides p-values that are more in line with confirmatory analyses. This development may inaugurate a body of work that would lead to the readmission of exploratory analyses to a position of persuasive power in clinical trials.