ABSTRACT
BACKGROUND: Industry payments to US cancer centers are poorly understood. METHODS: US National Cancer Institute (NCI)-designated comprehensive cancer centers were identified (n = 51). Industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers from 2014 to 2021 were obtained from Open Payments and National Institutes of Health (NIH) grant funding from NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools (RePORT). Given our focus on cancer centers, we measured the subset of industry payments related to cancer drugs specifically and the subset of NIH funding from the NCI. RESULTS: Despite a pandemic-related decline in 2020-2021, cancer-related industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers increased from $482 million in 2014 to $972 million in 2021. Over the same period, NCI research grant funding increased from $2â481â million to $2â724â million. The large majority of nonresearch payments were royalties and licensing payments. CONCLUSION: Industry payments to NCI-designated comprehensive cancer centers increased substantially more than NCI funding in recent years but were also more variable. These trends raise concerns regarding the influence and instability of industry payments.
Subject(s)
Cancer Care Facilities , Drug Industry , National Cancer Institute (U.S.) , National Institutes of Health (U.S.) , Research Support as Topic , United States , Humans , National Cancer Institute (U.S.)/economics , Drug Industry/economics , Drug Industry/trends , Research Support as Topic/trends , Research Support as Topic/economics , National Institutes of Health (U.S.)/economics , Cancer Care Facilities/economics , Conflict of Interest/economics , Antineoplastic Agents/economics , Neoplasms/economicsABSTRACT
This cohort study investigates trends in total and per-physician industry-sponsored research payments to physician principal investigators from 2015 to 2022.
Subject(s)
Research Personnel , Humans , Research Personnel/economics , Research Support as Topic/economics , Research Support as Topic/trends , Drug Industry/economics , Physicians/economics , United States , Biomedical Research/economics , Conflict of InterestSubject(s)
Education, Graduate , Research Personnel , Research Support as Topic , Social Justice , Brazil , Research Personnel/economics , Research Personnel/education , Fellowships and Scholarships/economics , Fellowships and Scholarships/trends , Research Support as Topic/economics , Research Support as Topic/trends , Social Justice/economics , Social Justice/trendsSubject(s)
Mental Health , Psychology, Adolescent , Research Support as Topic , Social Media , Adolescent , Humans , Adolescent Psychiatry/economics , Adolescent Psychiatry/trends , European Union/economics , Mental Health/economics , Psychology, Adolescent/economics , Psychology, Adolescent/trends , Research Support as Topic/economics , Research Support as Topic/trends , Social Media/economics , Social Media/legislation & jurisprudence , Internet Use/statistics & numerical dataSubject(s)
Politics , Science , India , Science/economics , Science/standards , Science/trends , Research Support as Topic/trendsSubject(s)
Drug Industry , Health Equity , Pharmaceutical Preparations , Research Support as Topic , Humans , Drug Industry/economics , International Cooperation , Pandemics , Research Support as Topic/economics , Research Support as Topic/organization & administration , Research Support as Topic/trends , Health Equity/economics , Health Equity/trends , Pharmaceutical Preparations/economics , Pharmaceutical Preparations/supply & distributionABSTRACT
Esta es la primera parte de un artículo sobre la búsqueda de financiamiento para un proyecto de investigación. Esta entrega resume los principales ítems para tener en consideración a la hora de postularse a una convocatoria. Requerimientos del proceso: 1. Tiempo protegido. 2. Propuesta de investigación sólida. 3. Equipo calificado y con experiencia. 4. Definición y organización de actividades. 5. Cronograma de actividades. 6. Estimación de costos. (AU)
This is the first part of an article about finding funding for a research project. This delivery summarizes the main ítems to take into consideration when applying for a call. Process requirements: 1. Protected time. 2. Strong research proposal. 3. Qualified and experienced team. 4. Definition and organization of activities. 5. Schedule of activities. 6. Cost estimate. (AU)
Subject(s)
Humans , Research Support as Topic/methods , Research Financing , Support of Research , Research Design/trends , Research Support as Topic/trends , Financing, OrganizedABSTRACT
OBJECTIVE: The Neurosurgery Research and Education Foundation (NREF) provides research support for in-training and early career neurosurgeon-scientists. To define the impact of this funding, the authors assessed the success of NREF awardees in obtaining subsequent National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding. METHODS: NREF in-training (Research Fellowship [RF] for residents) and early career awards/awardees (Van Wagenen Fellowship [VW] and Young Clinician Investigator [YCI] award for neurosurgery faculty) were analyzed. NIH funding was defined by individual awardees using the NIH Research Portfolio Online Reporting tool (1985-2014). RESULTS: Between 1985 and 2014, 207 unique awardees were supported by 218 NREF awards ($9.84 million [M] in funding), including 117 RF ($6.02 M), 32 VW ($1.68 M), and 69 YCI ($2.65 M) awards. Subspecialty funding included neuro-oncology (79 awards; 36% of RF, VW, and YCI awards), functional (53 awards; 24%), vascular (37 awards; 17%), spine (22 awards; 10%), pediatrics (18 awards; 8%), trauma/critical care (5 awards; 2%), and peripheral nerve (4 awards; 2%). These awardees went on to receive $353.90 M in NIH funding that resulted in an overall NREF/NIH funding ratio of 36.0:1 (in dollars). YCI awardees most frequently obtained later NIH funding (65%; $287.27 M), followed by VW (56%; $41.10 M) and RF (31%; $106.59 M) awardees. YCI awardees had the highest NREF/NIH funding ratio (108.6:1), followed by VW (24.4:1) and RF (17.7:1) awardees. Subspecialty awardees who went on to obtain NIH funding included vascular (19 awardees; 51% of vascular NREF awards), neuro-oncology (40 awardees; 51%), pediatrics (9 awardees; 50%), functional (25 awardees; 47%), peripheral nerve (1 awardees; 25%), trauma/critical care (2 awardees; 20%), and spine (2 awardees; 9%) awardees. Subspecialty NREF/NIH funding ratios were 56.2:1 for vascular, 53.0:1 for neuro-oncology, 47.6:1 for pediatrics, 34.1:1 for functional, 22.2:1 for trauma/critical care, 9.5:1 for peripheral nerve, and 0.4:1 for spine. Individuals with 2 NREF awards achieved a higher NREF/NIH funding ratio (83.3:1) compared to those with 1 award (29.1:1). CONCLUSIONS: In-training and early career NREF grant awardees are an excellent investment, as a significant portion of these awardees go on to obtain NIH funding. Moreover, there is a potent multiplicative impact of NREF funding converted to NIH funding that is related to award type and subspecialty.