Search

Background: Musculoskeletal (MSK) injuries are one of the leading causes of disability worldwide. Despite improvements in trauma-related morbidity and mortality in high-income countries over recent years, outcomes following MSK injuries in low- and middle-income countries, such as South Africa (SA), have not. Despite governmental recognition that this is required, funding and research into this significant health burden are limited within SA. This study aims to identify research priorities within MSK trauma care using a consensus-based approach amongst MSK healthcare practitioners within SA., Method: Members from the Orthopaedic Research Collaboration in Africa (ORCA), based in SA, collaborated using a two round modified Delphi technique to form a consensus on research priorities within orthopaedic trauma care. Members involved in the process were orthopaedic healthcare practitioners within SA., Results: Participants from the ORCA network, working within SA, scored research priorities across two Delphi rounds from low to high priority. We have published the overall top 10 research priorities for this Delphi process. Questions were focused on two broad groups-clinical effectiveness in trauma care and general trauma public health care. Both groups were represented by the top two priorities, with the highest ranked question regarding the overall impact of trauma in SA and the second regarding the clinical treatment of open fractures., Conclusion: This study has defined research priorities within orthopaedic trauma in South Africa. Our vision is that by establishing consensus on these research priorities, policy and research funding will be directed into these areas. This should ultimately improve musculoskeletal trauma care across South Africa and its significant health and socioeconomic impacts., (© 2023. The Author(s), under exclusive licence to Springer-Verlag France SAS, part of Springer Nature.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: None declared.

Background: The mechanisms and pathways to impacts from public health research in the UK have not been widely studied. Through the lens of one funder (NIHR), our aims are to map the diversity of public health research, in terms of funding mechanisms, disciplinary contributions, and public health impacts, identify examples of impacts, and pathways to impact that existing reporting mechanisms may not otherwise have captured, and provide illustrations of how public health researchers perceive the generation of non-academic impact from their work., Methods: A total of 1386 projects were identified as 'public health research' by the NIHR and listed in the NIHR Public Health Overview database (2000-2016). From these, a subset of 857 projects were matched as potentially having begun reporting impacts via an external data-gathering platform (Researchfish). Data on the 857 projects were analyzed quantitatively, and nine projects were selected to investigate further through semi-structured interviews with principal investigators. Two workshops took place to validate emerging and final findings and facilitate analysis., Results: In addition to the NIHR School for Public Health Research and the NIHR Public Health Research Programme, 89% of projects contained in the NIHR Public Health Overview portfolio as 'public health research' are funded via other NIHR research programmes, suggesting significant diversity in disciplines contributing to public health research and outcomes. The pathways to impact observed in our in-depth case studies include contributing to debates on what constitutes appropriate evidence for national policy change, acknowledging local 'unintended' impacts, building trusted relationships with stakeholders across health and non-health sectors and actors, collaborating with local authorities, and using non-academic dissemination channels., Conclusions: Public health as a discipline contributes substantially to impact beyond academia. To support the diversity of these impacts, we need to recognise localized smaller-scale impacts, and the difference in types of evidence required for community and local authority-based impacts. This will also require building capacity and resources to enable impact to take place from public health research. Finally, support is required for engagement with local authorities and working with non-health sectors that contribute to health outcomes.

This article examines the geographic distribution of funding for the U.S. Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) and Small Business Technology Transfer (STTR) programs sponsored by the National Institute of General Medical Sciences (NIGMS). Despite a significant investment in SBIR/STTR and an interest in increasing geographic diversity in the institute's research portfolio, there has not been an assessment of the distribution of NIGMS's SBIR/STTR funding, outcomes associated with that investment, and relationships between the two. The geographic distribution of NIGMS' SBIR/STTR funding was highly concentrated in a small number of states, with a high correlation between each state's funding and its number of small scientific research and development businesses. Affiliation with a major research university was correlated with several measures of innovation and firm success. Our findings are consistent with earlier research showing that economic activity in research and development and research output tend to cluster in geographic regions where knowledge can be generated and shared more efficiently. These findings lend support to an investment strategy for small business research and development that creates networks between major research universities and small businesses., (Published by Elsevier Ltd.)

Restricting application rates is an attractive way for funders to reduce time and money wasted evaluating uncompetitive applications. However, mathematical models show that this could induce chaotic cycles in total application numbers, increasing uncertainty in the funding process. One emergent property is that smaller institutions spend disproportionally more time unfunded., (Copyright © 2018 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Background: In Germany, a great amount of money is spent annually on health research (HR). However, detailed quantitative data concerning funders and receivers of the financing is lacking., Objective: The goal of this paper is to depict the scope to which funders finance HR and the amount of money research institutions receive for their research activities., Materials and Methods: First, openly accessible sources were searched to identify the relevant data for 2013. Missing data was requested from the specific institutions. Where relevant data could not be identified, approximate results were determined or marked as missing., Results: In 2013, approximately 10.14 billion EUR were spent on HR. The most important funders were business (58%) and public agencies (36%). Business mainly funded privately financed research institutions, while public agencies mainly funded universities and non-university research institutions. Overall, privately financed research institutions received 55% of the research money, universities 34%, non-university research institutions 9%, and 2% of the money went to federal institutions., Conclusion: In Germany, the biggest share of health research money is spent and consumed by the private sector. The pattern of financing health research in Germany is comparable to other countries where data are available.

Objective: To (i) evaluate the extent to which Coca-Cola's 'Transparency Lists' of 218 researchers that it funds are comprehensive; (ii) map all scientific research acknowledging funding from Coca-Cola; (iii) identify those institutions, authors and research topics funded by Coca-Cola; and (iv) use Coca-Cola's disclosure to gauge whether its funded researchers acknowledge the source of funding., Design: Using Web of Science Core Collection database, we retrieved all studies declaring receipt of direct funding from the Coca-Cola brand, published between 2008 and 2016. Using conservative eligibility criteria, we iteratively removed studies and recreated Coca-Cola's transparency lists using our data. We used network analysis and structural topic modelling to assess the structure, organization and thematic focus of Coca-Cola's research enterprise, and string matching to evaluate the completeness of Coca-Cola's transparency lists., Results: Three hundred and eighty-nine articles, published in 169 different journals, and authored by 907 researchers, cite funding from The Coca-Cola Company. Of these, Coca-Cola acknowledges funding forty-two authors (<5 %). We observed that the funded research focuses mostly on nutrition and emphasizes the importance of physical activity and the concept of 'energy balance'., Conclusions: The Coca-Cola Company appears to have failed to declare a comprehensive list of its research activities. Further, several funded authors appear to have failed to declare receipt of funding. Most of Coca-Cola's research support is directed towards physical activity and disregards the role of diet in obesity. Despite initiatives for greater transparency of research funding, the full scale of Coca-Cola's involvement is still not known.