1,720,966 research outputs found
The allocation of funding into blast injury related research and traumatic brain injury between 2000-2019: An analysis of global investments from public and philanthropic funders
No full textBackground: There is little systematic tracking or detailed analysis of investments in research and development for blast injury to support decision-making around research funding.Methods: This study examined global investments into blast injury-related research from public and philanthropic funders across 2000-2019. Research databases were searched using keywords, and open data was extracted from funder websites. Data collected included study title, abstract, award amount, funder, and year. Individual awards were categorised to compare amounts invested into different blast injuries, the scientific approaches taken and analysis of research investment into traumatic brain injury (TBI).Findings: A total of 806 awards were identified into blast injury-related research globally, equating to 671.3m (74%) of investment. Brain-related injury research received 138.6m (15%), eye injury 60.5m (7%). TBI research received a total investment of 719.3m (80%).Interpretation: Investment data suggests that TBI research has received greater funding than other blast injury health areas. The funding pattern observed can be seen as reactive, driven by the response to the War on Terror, the rising profile of TBI and congressionally mandated research.Funding Statement: The authors gratefully acknowledge support from: RAEng Frontiers of Development Seed Funding, EPSRC Doctoral Prize, The Global Challenges Research Fund (GCRF) and The Royal Academy of Engineering (RAEng) (award no. RF/130).Declaration of Interests: No benefits in any form have been or will be received from a commercial party related directly or indirectly to the subject of this manuscript
Infectious disease research investments follow colonial ties: questionable ethics
Full text linkInternational funding for global health research is not systematically documented. We have assessed the level of research funding awarded by UK funders of international research to low-and middle-income countries or research institutions in these countries
Funding healthcare-associated infection research: a systematic analysis of UK research investments, 1997-2010.
Full text linkHealthcare-associated infections (HCAIs) are a cause of high health and economic burden in the UK. The number of HCAI research studies funded in the UK, and the associated amount of investment, has not previously been analysed
Investing in sepsis research: systematic analysis of UK public and philanthropic funding 1997-2010
Full text linkVersion of Recor
Differences in research funding for women scientists: a systematic comparison of UK investments in global infectious disease research during 1997-2010
Full text linkThere has not previously been a systematic comparison of awards for research funding in infectious diseases by sex. We investigated funding awards to UK institutions for all infectious disease research from 1997 to 2010, across disease categories and along the research and development continuum
Systematic analysis of funding awarded for viral hepatitis-related research to institutions in the United Kingdom, 1997-2010.
Full text linkViral hepatitis is responsible for great health, social and economic burden both globally and in the UK. This study aimed to assess the research funding awarded to UK institutions for viral hepatitis research and the relationship of funded research to clinical and public health burden of viral hepatitis. Databases and websites were systematically searched for information on infectious disease research studies funded for the period 1997-2010. Studies specifically related to viral hepatitis research were identified and categorized in terms of funding by pathogen, disease and by a research and development value chain describing the type of science. The overall data set included 6165 studies (total investment £2.6 billion) of which £76.9 million (3.0%) was directed towards viral hepatitis across 323 studies (5.2%). By pathogen, there were four studies specifically investigating hepatitis A (£3.8 million), 69 studies for hepatitis B (21.4%) with total investment of £14.7 million (19.1%) and 236 (73.1%) hepatitis C studies (£62.7 million, 81.5%). There were 4 studies investigating hepatitis G, and none specifying hepatitis D or E. By associated area, viral hepatitis and therapeutics research received £17.0 million, vaccinology £3.1 million and diagnostics £2.9 million. Preclinical research received £50.3 million (65.4%) across 173 studies, whilst implementation and operational research received £19.4 million (25.3%) across 128 studies. The UK is engaged in much hepatology research, but there are areas where the burden is great and may require greater focus, such as hepatitis E, development of a vaccine for hepatitis C, and further research into hepatitis-associated cancers. Private sector data, and funding information from other countries, would also be useful in priority setting
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
The Allocation of US$ 105 Billion in Global Funding for Infectious Disease Research between 2000 and 2017: An Analysis of Investments from Funders in the G20 Countries
No full textBackground: Each year, billions of dollars are spent globally on infectious disease research and development (R&D). However, there is little systematic tracking of global R&D.Methods: The study examined research awards made between 2000 and 2017 for infectious disease research from G20-based public and philanthropic funders. Research databases were searched using a range of keywords, and open data was extracted from funder websites. Awards were categorised by type of science, specialty, and disease/pathogen. Data collected included study title, abstract, award amount, funder, and year. Descriptive statistics and regression analyses were used to investigate the relationship between research investment and disease burden, using Global Burden of Disease 2017 study data.Findings: There was 4.1 to 61.1b (58.2%) and public health research 42.1b (40.1%), tuberculosis 5.6b (5.3%) and pneumonia 1.2b), Zika (4.4b) and coronavirus (81.6b (77.8%). On the basis of funding per 2017 disability-adjusted life years (DALYs), HIV/AIDS received greatest relative investment (156/DALY), malaria (33/DALY). Syphilis and scabies received the least relative investment ($9/DALY). There was a weak positive relationship (Spearman’s correlation coefficient [r] 0.30) between investment and 2017 disease burden.Interpretation: HIV research received highest amount of investment relative to DALY burden. Scabies and syphilis received lowest relative funding. Investments for high-threat pathogens (e.g. Ebola, Coronavirus) were often reactive, following outbreaks. There was little evidence that funding is guided by global burden or pandemic risk. The study findings show how research investments are allocated currently and how these relate to disease burden and to conditions with pandemic potential.<br/
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
- …
