Global financing for health policy and systems research: a review of funding opportunities.

Health policy and systems research (HPSR) is a neglected area in global health financing. Despite repeated calls for greater investment, it seems that there has been little growth. We analysed trends in reported funding and activity between 2015 and 2021 using a novel real-time source of global health data, the Devex.com database, the world's largest source of funding opportunities related to international development. We performed a systematic search of the Devex.com database for HPSR-related terms with a focus on low- and middle-income countries. We included 'programs', 'tenders & grants' and 'contract awards', covering all call statuses (open, closed or forecast). Such funding opportunities were included if they were related specifically to HPSR funding or had an HPSR component; pure biomedical funding was excluded. Our findings reveal a relative neglect of HPSR, as only ∼2% of all global health funding calls included a discernible HPSR component. Despite increases in funding calls until 2019, this situation reversed in 2020, likely reflecting the redirection of resources to rapid assessments of the impacts of the coronavirus disease 2019 (COVID-19) pandemic. Most identified projects represented small-scale opportunities-commonly for consultancies or technical assistance. To the extent that new data were generated, these projects were either tied to a specific large intervention or were narrow in scope to meet a specific challenge-with many examples informing policy responses to the Covid-19 pandemic. Nearly half of advertised funding opportunities were multi-country projects, usually addressing global policy priorities like health systems strengthening or development of coordinated public health policies at a regional level. The Covid-19 pandemic has shown why investing in HPSR is more important than ever to enable the delivery of effective health interventions and avoid costly implementation failures. The evidence presented here highlights the need to scale up efforts to convince global health funders to institutionalize the inclusion of HPSR components in all funding calls.

Gender Composition in Biomedical Research Grant Submissions and Grant Review Panels Before Versus During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Purpose: This study examined the gender composition of career development award applicants and grant review panels during the pandemic compared with that beforehand. Methods: Data were collected from 14 Health Research Alliance (HRA) organizations, which fund biomedical research and training. HRA members provided the gender of grant applicants and grant reviewers during the pandemic (April 1, 2020, to February 28, 2021) and prepandemic (April 1, 2019, to February 29, 2020). The signed-rank test compared medians and the chi square test compared the overall gender distribution. Results: The total number of applicants was similar during the pandemic (N = 3,724) and prepandemic (N = 3,882) periods, as was the percentage of women applicants (45.2% pandemic vs. 44.9% prepandemic, p = 0.78). The total number of men and women grant reviewers declined during the pandemic (N = 856) compared with that pre-pandemic (N = 1,689); this decrease was driven by a change for the largest funder. Also driven by changes for this one funder, the percentage of total grant reviewers who were women increased significantly during the pandemic (45.9%) compared with that during prepandemic (38.8%; p = 0.001), but the median percentage of women grant reviewers across organizations remained similar during the pandemic (43.6%) and prepandemic periods (38.2%; p = 0.53). Conclusions: In a sample of research organizations, the gender composition of grant applicants and grant review panels remained similar, except for the review panel composition for one large funder. Given evidence from other studies that have revealed gender differences in other career and life experiences of scientists during the pandemic, ongoing evaluation of women's representation in grant submission and review mechanisms is essential.

Gender Differences in National Institutes of Health Grant Submissions Before and During the COVID-19 Pandemic.

Introduction: Emerging data suggest that the COVID-19 pandemic has disproportionately impacted women in academic medicine, potentially eliminating recent gains that have been made toward gender equity. This study examined possible pandemic-related gender disparities in research grant submissions, one of the most important criteria for academic promotion and tenure evaluations. Methods: Data were collected from two major academic institutions (one private and one public) on the gender and academic rank of faculty principal investigators who submitted new grants to the National Institutes of Health (NIH) during COVID-19 (March 1st, 2020, through August 31, 2020) compared with a matched period in 2019 (March 1st, 2019, through August 31, 2019). t-Tests and chi-square analyses compared the gender distribution of individuals who submitted grants during the two periods of examination. Results: In 2019 (prepandemic), there was no significant difference in the average number of grants submitted by women compared with men faculty. In contrast, women faculty submitted significantly fewer grants in 2020 (during the pandemic) than men. Men were also significantly more likely than women to submit grants in both 2019 and 2020 compared with submitting in 2019 only, suggesting men faculty may have been more likely than their women colleagues to sustain their productivity in grant submissions during the pandemic. Discussion: Women's loss of extramural funding may compound over time, as it impedes new data collection, research progress, and academic advancement. Efforts to support women's research productivity and career trajectories are urgently needed in the following years of pandemic recovery.

NIH funding of COVID-19 research in 2020: a cross-sectional study.

OBJECTIVE: This study aims to characterise and evaluate the National Institutes of Health's (NIH's) grant allocation speed and pattern of COVID-19 research. DESIGN: Cross-sectional study. SETTING: COVID-19 NIH RePORTER Dataset was used to identify COVID-19 relevant grants. PARTICIPANTS: 1108 grants allocated to COVID-19 research. MAIN OUTCOMES AND MEASURES: The primary outcome was to determine the number of grants and funding amount the NIH allocated for COVID-19 by research type and clinical/scientific area. The secondary outcome was to calculate the time from the funding opportunity announcement to the award notice date. RESULTS: The NIH awarded a total of 56 169 grants in 2020, of which 2.0% (n=1108) wwas allocated for COVID-19 research. The NIH had a US$45.3 billion budget that year, of which 4.9% (US$2.2 billion) was allocated to COVID-19 research. The most common clinical/scientific areas were social determinants of health (n=278, 8.5% of COVID-19 funding), immunology (n=211, 25.8%) and pharmaceutical interventions research (n=208, 47.6%). There were 104 grants studying COVID-19 non-pharmaceutical interventions, of which 2 grants studied the efficacy of face masks and 6 studied the efficacy of social distancing. Of the 83 COVID-19 funded grants on transmission, 5 were awarded to study airborne transmission of COVID-19 and 2 grants on transmission of COVID-19 in schools. The average time from the funding opportunity announcement to the award notice date was 151 days (SD: ±57.9). CONCLUSION: In the first year of the pandemic, the NIH diverted a small fraction of its budget to COVID-19 research. Future health emergencies will require research funding to pivot in a timely fashion and funding levels to be proportional to the anticipated burden of disease in the population.

Centralized Otolaryngology Research Efforts: Stepping-stones to Innovation and Equity in Otolaryngology-Head and Neck Surgery.

The Centralized Otolaryngology Research Efforts (CORE) grant program coordinates research funding initiatives across the subspecialties of otolaryngology-head and neck surgery. Modeled after National Institutes of Health study sections, CORE grant review processes provide comprehensive reviews of scientific proposals. The organizational structure and grant review process support grant-writing skills, attention to study design, and other components of academic maturation toward securing external grants from the National Institutes of Health or other agencies. As a learning community and a catalyst for scientific advances, CORE evaluates clinical, translational, basic science, and health services research. Amid the societal reckoning around long-standing social injustices and health inequities, an important question is to what extent CORE engenders diversity, equity, and inclusion for the otolaryngology workforce. This commentary explores CORE's track record as a stepping-stone for promoting equity and innovation in the specialty. Such insights can help maximize opportunities for cultivating diverse leaders across the career continuum.