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: JID has received the standard US$400 honorarium for being a panel member of the NIH Implementation Science Grant funding stream; is a member of the Trial Steering Committee for D-Clare (UK Medical Research Council-funded study: MR/T023562/1), for which no payment is received; is a member of the drug safety monitoring board for an NIH-funded study (5R01HL144708), for which an honorarium of $200 is received; and is a member of the WHO working group to discern targets for the Diabetes Compact. KC has received funding from the UK Academy of Science, Global Challenges Research Fund, to host conferences to improve surgical care in southern Africa; a grant from the UK National Institute for Health Research to identify barriers to injury care in South Africa, Ghana, and Rwanda; and a grant from the South Africa National Research Foundation, for improving access to surgical care in South Africa; none of the funding relates to this manuscript. All other authors declare no competing interests.

Competing Interests: VL declares research support from the Swiss Kidney Foundation and the Brocher Foundation, unrelated to the areas of work discussed in this Comment. SN declares research support jointly from the Medical Research Council (UK and South Africa), Newton Fund, and GlaxoSmithKline, as a Principal Investigator. SV reports research support from Wellcome Trust and UK Economic and Social Research Council. GA declares no competing interests.

Importance: Emerging vision scientists who have yet to be awarded their first independent funding may have their research careers disproportionately affected by early COVID-19-related disruptions. In September 2020, the Alliance for Eye and Vision Research convened a panel of 22 such scientists (nominated by their academic institutions) to communicate to the US Congress about the importance of vision research. As part of the effort, interviews were conducted with scientists about the effect of the pandemic on their research., Observations: Qualitative areas of adverse consequences from the early months of COVID-19 disruptions included striking interruptions of patient-based research, limits on other types of clinical research, loss of research time for scientists with young children (especially women), challenges with animal colonies and cell cultures, impediments to research collaborations, and loss of training time., Conclusions and Relevance: The early months during the COVID-19 pandemic increased career stress on many early-stage investigators in the vision field and delayed (and may potentially derail) their ability to attract their first independent research funding grant. As a result, federal and private granting agencies may need to take these factors into account to retain talented, early-stage vision researchers.

Background: Success in academic surgery is challenging and research cannot survive without funding. NIH K-awards are designed to mentor junior investigators to achieve independence. As a result we aimed to study K awardees in departments of surgery and learn from their experience., Material and Methods: Utilizing the NIH RePORTer database and filtering by department of surgery, clinically active surgeons receiving a K-award between 2008 and 2018 were asked to complete an online survey. Qualitative data from two open-ended questions were coded independently using standard qualitative methods by three researchers. Using grounded theory, major themes emerged from the codes., Results: Of the 144 academic surgeons identified, 89 (62%) completed the survey. The average age was 39 ± 3 when the K-award was granted. Most identified as white (69%). Men (70%) were more likely to be married (P = 0.02) and have children (P = 0.05). To identify intention to pursue R01 funding, surgeons having a K-award for 5 y or more were analyzed (n = 45). Most either intended to (11%) or had already applied (80%) of which 36% were successful. Men were more likely to apply (P = 0.05). Major themes to succeed include protected time, mentorship, and support from leadership. Common barriers to overcome include balancing time, pressures to be clinically productive, and funding., Conclusions: The demographics and career trajectory of NIH K-awarded surgeons is described. The lack of underrepresented minorities receiving grants is concerning. Most recipients required more than one application attempt and plan to or have applied for R01 funding. The major themes were very similar; a supportive environment and time available for research are the most crucial factors to succeed as an academic surgeon., (Copyright © 2020 Elsevier Inc. All rights reserved.)

Background: Research is needed to improve understanding of work-life integration issues in academic medicine and to guide the implementation of the Doris Duke Charitable Foundation's Fund to Retain Clinical Scientists (FRCS), a national initiative offering financial support to physician-scientists facing caregiving challenges. Materials and Methods: In 2018, as part of a prospective program evaluation, the authors conducted a qualitative study to examine FRCS program participants' initial impressions, solicit descriptions of their career and caregiving experiences, and inquire how such factors might influence their professional advancement. The authors invited all 33 awardees who had been granted FRCS funding in the first year of the program to participate in the study, of whom 28 agreed to complete an interview. Analysts evaluated de-identified transcripts and explicated the data using a thematic analysis approach. Results: While participants described aspects of a culture that harbor stigma against caregivers and impede satisfactory work-life integration, they also perceived an optimistic cultural shift taking place as a result of programs like the FRCS. Their comments indicated that the FRCS has the potential to influence culture if institutional leadership simultaneously fosters a community that validates individuals both as caregivers and as scientists. Conclusions: Insights garnered from this qualitative study suggest that there is a pressing need for institutional leaders to implement programs that can foster awareness and normalization of caregiving challenges. In addition to providing funding and other tangible resources, interventions should strive to reinforce a broader culture that affirms the presence of work-life integration challenges and openly embraces solutions.

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., (Copyright © 2020 Australian and New Zealand Society of Cardiac and Thoracic Surgeons (ANZSCTS) and the Cardiac Society of Australia and New Zealand (CSANZ). Published by Elsevier B.V. All rights reserved.)

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.

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., Competing Interests: POTENTIAL CONFLICT OF INTEREST: The authors have indicated they have no potential conflicts of interest to disclose., (Copyright © 2020 by the American Academy of Pediatrics.)

Objective: Among National Institutes of Health Clinical and Translational Science Award (CTSA) hubs, adoption of electronic data warehouses for research (EDW4R) containing data from electronic health record systems is nearly ubiquitous. Although benefits of EDW4R include more effective, efficient support of scientists, little is known about how CTSA hubs have implemented EDW4R services. The goal of this qualitative study was to understand the ways in which CTSA hubs have operationalized EDW4R to support clinical and translational researchers., Materials and Methods: After conducting semistructured interviews with informatics leaders from 20 CTSA hubs, we performed a directed content analysis of interview notes informed by naturalistic inquiry., Results: We identified 12 themes: organization and data; oversight and governance; data access request process; data access modalities; data access for users with different skill sets; engagement, communication, and literacy; service management coordinated with enterprise information technology; service management coordinated within a CTSA hub; service management coordinated between informatics and biostatistics; funding approaches; performance metrics; and future trends and current technology challenges., Discussion: This study is a step in developing an improved understanding and creating a common vocabulary about EDW4R operations across institutions. Findings indicate an opportunity for establishing best practices for EDW4R operations in academic medicine. Such guidance could reduce the costs associated with developing an EDW4R by establishing a clear roadmap and maturity path for institutions to follow., Conclusions: CTSA hubs described varying approaches to EDW4R operations that may assist other institutions in better serving investigators with electronic patient data., (© The Author(s) 2020. Published by Oxford University Press on behalf of the American Medical Informatics Association. All rights reserved. For permissions, please email: journals.permissions@oup.com.)

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.

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.

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.

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.

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.

The paper focuses on how to improve academic output of a granted fund when the adding of new members changes principal investigator's network position. This objective is refined by exploring how new members affect the relationship between principal investigator's network position and the academic output of granted funds, and whether this effect is similar in high-output and low-output collaboration networks. New members are divided into two groups, namely, international collaboration and inbound mobility. Using negative binomial regression on research funds supported by the National Natural Science Foundation of China, the results indicate that new members indeed have moderating effects on the relationship between principal investigator's network position and the academic output of granted funds. Moreover, we find that this moderating effect in high-output collaboration networks is larger than that in low-output collaboration networks. Our findings provide practical implications for the decision makers to design funding planning and for the principal investigators to improve academic output., (Copyright © 2019 Elsevier Ltd. All rights reserved.)

Competing Interests: Competing interests: We have read and understood BMJ policy on declaration of interests and have no relevant interests to declare. Provenance and peer review: Commissioned; externally peer reviewed.

Background: Community-engaged research (CEnR) is a promising approach to translate research into practice. The Meharry-Vanderbilt Community Engaged Research Core (CERC) was established to support academic-community partnerships with the goal of improving community health. A successful mini-grant program has been used to foster academic community partnerships. We describe the process of developing, implementing, and sustaining a grant program and discuss how the program has informed our CEnR activities., Methods: Grant applications are solicited twice per year. Submission guidelines align with typical procedures. However, considerable guidance and support for applicants are provided. If necessary. Grant funds are awarded directly to the community partner., Results: The CERC has awarded nearly $250,000 to support academic-community research partnerships. Both community and academic partners reported that the opportunity was beneficial and enriched their work., Conclusions: Resources provided by our mini-grant program enhance the development and sustainability of CEnR partnerships.

Forty-three years after it was founded, with billions of dollars invested, the global biotech industry is still not positioned as a mature low-risk sector for the international investor com-munity. Despite the clear commercial success of a number of leading companies and overall growth of the industry's rev-enues, most biotech companies are not profi table and many fail to overcome the formidable barrier constituted by the high cost of the sector's research and development. However, over the last four years, visible signs of change have appeared, which could be harbingers of an approaching turning point in this trend.This article analyzes the historic background of the biotech in-dustry's business models and corporate structures, as well as their impact on the industry's fi nancial framework. It examines recent changes implemented by the sector's main actors-in-cluding young startups, venture capital funds and big pharma companies-to mitigate fi nancial risk associated with develop-ment of new biotechnology products.Finally, it discusses the challenges and opportunities that these tendencies entail for Cuban biotechnology development and proposes adoption of business policies more tolerant of the fi nancial risk inherent in this sector, as a condition for at-tracting venture capital. KEYWORDS Biotechnology, fund raising, risk management, entrepreneurship, Cuba.