Sepsis Research Using Omics Technology in the European Union and the United Kingdom: Maps, Trends, and Future Implications.

High-throughput omics technologies have become valuable tools for systems science research and clinical management of sepsis. This article analyzes sepsis research using omics technologies in the European Union (EU) and the United Kingdom from 1990 to May 2023 using bibliometric data from the Web of Science database. Using VOSviewer for network analysis, we examined the distribution patterns, funding characteristics, and collaborations among the states, noting trends of convergence and divergence. The analysis included 2078 articles, revealing an increasing rate of publications on sepsis research using omics approaches. The United Kingdom's research output is notably high, contributing 28.3% of the total research from the EU and United Kingdom combined. Germany, France, the Netherlands, and Italy together account for 56.9% of the publications from the EU member states. The United States is the leading international collaborator, particularly with the United Kingdom, followed by Germany and France. The EU-15 countries have significantly more publication outputs in this domain with growing but limited inclusion of the newer members of the EU. We suggest that the role of EU member states and the United Kingdom in sepsis research using omics technologies can be advanced by facilitating high-value, technology-driven health research, fostering collaboration, convergence, and equity in global health and biomedical research.

Overarching Priorities for Health and Care Research in the United Kingdom: A Coproduced Synthesis of James Lind Alliance 'Top 10s'.

INTRODUCTION: James Lind Alliance (JLA) Priority Setting Partnerships (PSPs) produce 'Top 10' lists of health and care research priorities through a structured, shared decision-making process with patients or service users, carers and health or care professionals who identify questions that are most important to them. To date, over 150 PSPs in different areas of health and care have published research priorities. Some PSPs share similar priorities, which could be combined, promoted and addressed through collaborative research to increase value and reduce research waste. AIM: The aim of this study was to identify overarching themes common to JLA PSP priorities across different areas of health and care. METHODS: Our analysis included 'Top 10' research priorities produced by UK-based JLA PSPs between 2016 and 2020. The priorities were coded deductively by the Health Research Classification System (HRCS) health category and research activity. We then carried out online workshops with patients, service users and carers to generate new codes not already captured by this framework. Within each code, multistakeholder inductive thematic analysis was used to identify overarching themes, defined as encompassing priorities from three or more PSPs covering two or more health categories. We used codesign methods to produce an interactive tool for end users to navigate the overarching themes. RESULTS: Five hundred and fifteen research priorities from 51 PSPs were included in our analysis. The priorities together encompassed 20 of 21 HRCS health categories, the most common being 'generic health relevance' (22%), 'mental health' (18%) and 'musculoskeletal' (14%). We identified 89 overarching themes and subthemes, which we organised into a hierarchy with seven top-level themes: quality of life, caregivers and families, causes and prevention, screening and diagnosis, treatment and management, services and systems and social influences and impacts. CONCLUSION: There are many overarching themes common to research priorities across multiple areas of health and care. To facilitate new research and research funding, we have developed an interactive tool to help researchers, funders and patients or service users to explore these priority topics. This is freely available to download online. PATIENT OR PUBLIC CONTRIBUTION: Patients or service users and carers were involved throughout the study, including deciding the aims, designing the study, analysing priorities to identify themes, interpreting and reporting the findings.

Two decades of research capacity strengthening and reciprocal learning on sexual and reproductive health in East Africa - a point of (no) return.

As the world is facing challenges such as pandemics, climate change, conflicts, and changing political landscapes, the need to secure access to safe and high-quality abortion care is more urgent than ever. On 27th of June 2023, the Swedish government decided to cut funding resources available for developmental research, which has played a fundamental role in the advancement of sexual and reproductive health and rights (SRHR) globally, including abortion care. Withdrawal of this funding not only threatens the fulfilment of the United Nations sustainable development goals (SDGS) - target 3.7 on ensuring universal access to SRHR and target 5 on gender equality - but also jeopardises two decades of research capacity strengthening. In this article, we describe how the partnerships that we have built over the course of two decades have amounted to numerous publications, doctoral graduates, and important advancements within the field of SRHR in East Africa and beyond.

Main findings: The two-decade long collaboration between Sweden and East Africa, funded by the Swedish government, has resulted in important partnerships, research findings, and advancements within sexual and reproductive health and rights in East Africa.Added knowledge: The Swedish government is now cutting funding for development research, which jeopardises the progress made so far.Global health impact for policy and action: Governments need to prioritise women's sexual and reproductive health and rights.

Gender(ed) science: How the institutionalization of gender continues to shape the conduct and content of women's health research.

Gender refers to the socially constructed roles, behaviors, and attributes that a particular society considers appropriate for men and women based on assumptions about biological sex. It also operates as a major social organizing principle that confers unequal power, status, and resources to men and women, with direct consequences for health. Historic patriarchal and misogynistic beliefs and values are reinforced through social institutions, including health science, which reify gender inequities. This commentary examines two key domains in which the social organization and institutionalization of gender in scientific research affect the conduct of women's health research and, by extension, women's health outcomes. These domains are: 1) decisions about which topics are prioritized, researched, and funded and 2) the dissemination of research findings. Using the National Institutes of Health (NIH) as a case study to illustrate broader patterns in scientific research, we present evidence of gender-based inequities in what is prioritized, deemed fundable, and disseminated, and how this affects knowledge production and attention to women's health. We highlight efforts and progress made by the NIH and call for additional attention to further address gender-based inequities and their impact on women's health research. We conclude with a call for critical social science analyses-ideally supported by the NIH-of the social organization of health science research to identify points of intervention for redressing deep-seated obstacles to advancing research on women's health.

Federal and foundational research funding trends for cerebrovascular neurosurgeons: the decline of the cerebrovascular surgeon-scientist?

OBJECTIVE: The number of cerebrovascular (CV) surgeons has grown with the rise of endovascular neurosurgery. However, it is unclear whether the number of CV surgeon-scientists has concomitantly increased. With increasing numbers of CV neurosurgeons in the US workforce, the authors analyzed associated changes in National Institutes of Health (NIH) and Neurosurgery Research and Education Foundation (NREF) funding trends for CV surgeons over time. METHODS: Publicly available data were collected on currently practicing academic CV surgeons in the US. Inflation-adjusted NIH funding between 2009 and 2021 was surveyed using NIH RePORTER and Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research data. The K12 Neurosurgeon Research Career Development Program and NREF grant data were queried for CV-focused grants. Pearson R correlation, chi-square analysis, and the Mann-Whitney U-test were used for statistical analysis. RESULTS: From 2009 to 2021, NIH funding increased: in total (p = 0.0318), to neurosurgeons (p < 0.0001), to CV research projects (p < 0.0001), and to CV surgeons (p = 0.0018). During this time period, there has been an increase in the total number of CV surgeons (p < 0.0001), the number of NIH-funded CV surgeons (p = 0.0034), and the percentage of CV surgeons with NIH funding (p = 0.370). Additionally, active NIH grant dollars per CV surgeon (p = 0.0398) and the number of NIH grants per CV surgeon (p = 0.4257) have increased. Nevertheless, CV surgeons have been awarded a decreasing proportion of the overall pool of neurosurgeon-awarded NIH grants during this time period (p = 0.3095). In addition, there has been a significant decrease in the number of K08, K12, and K23 career development awards granted to CV surgeons during this time period (p = 0.0024). There was also a significant decline in the proportion of K12 (p = 0.0044) and downtrend in early-career NREF (p = 0.8978) grant applications and grants awarded during this time period. Finally, NIH-funded CV surgeons were more likely to have completed residency less recently (p = 0.001) and less likely to have completed an endovascular fellowship (p = 0.044) as compared with non-NIH-funded CV surgeons. CONCLUSIONS: The number of CV surgeons is increasing over time. While there has been a concomitant increase in the number of NIH-funded CV surgeons and the number of NIH grants awarded per CV surgeon in the past 12 years, there has also been a significant decrease in CV surgeons with K08, K12, and K23 career development awards and a downtrend in CV-focused K12 and early-career NREF applications and awarded grants. The latter findings suggest that the pipeline for future NIH-funded CV surgeons may be in decline.

Association Between Institution ZIP Code Characteristics and NIH Funding.

Introduction. While racial NIH funding disparities have been identified, little is known about the link between community demographics of institutions and NIH funding. We sought to evaluate the association between institution zip code characteristics and NIH funding. Methods. We linked the 2011-2021 NIH RePORTER database to Census data. We calculated the funding to each institution and stratified institutions into funding quartiles. We defined out independent variables as institution ZIP code level race/ethnicity (White, Black, and Hispanic), and socioeconomic status (household income, high school graduation rate, and unemployment rate). We used ordinal regression models to evaluate the association between institution ZIP code characteristics and grant funding quartile. Results. We included 731,548 grants (US$271,495,839,744) from 3,971 ZIP codes. The funding amounts in millions of U.S. dollars for the funding quartiles were fourth - 0.25, third - 1.1, second - 3.8, first - 43.5. Using ordinal regression, we found an association between increasing unemployment rate (OR = 1.03 [1.02, 1.05]), increasing high school graduation rate (OR = 3.6 [1.6, 8.4]), decreasing proportion of White people (OR = 0.4 [0.3, 0.5]), increasing proportion of Black people (OR = 1.3 [0.9, 1.8]), and increasing proportion of Hispanic/Latine people (OR = 2.5 [1.7, 3.5]) and higher grant funding quartiles. We found no association between household income and grant funding quartile. Conclusion. We found ZIP code demographics to be inadequate for evaluating NIH funding disparities, and the association between institution ZIP code demographics and investigator demographics is unclear. To evaluate and improve grant funding disparities, better grant recipient data accessibility and transparency are needed.

Ten Challenges to Understanding and Managing the Insect-Transmitted, Xylem-Limited Bacterial Pathogen Xylella fastidiosa.

An unprecedented plant health emergency in olives has been registered over the last decade in Italy, arguably more severe than what occurred repeatedly in grapes in the United States in the last 140 years. These emergencies are epidemics caused by a stealthy pathogen, the xylem-limited, insect-transmitted bacterium Xylella fastidiosa. Although these epidemics spurred research that answered many questions about the biology and management of this pathogen, many gaps in knowledge remain. For this review, we set out to represent both the U.S. and European perspectives on the most pressing challenges that need to be addressed. These are presented in 10 sections that we hope will stimulate discussion and interdisciplinary research. We reviewed intrinsic problems that arise from the fastidious growth of X. fastidiosa, the lack of specificity for insect transmission, and the economic and social importance of perennial mature woody plant hosts. Epidemiological models and predictions of pathogen establishment and disease expansion, vital for preparedness, are based on very limited data. Most of the current knowledge has been gathered from a few pathosystems, whereas several hundred remain to be studied, probably including those that will become the center of the next epidemic. Unfortunately, aspects of a particular pathosystem are not always transferable to others. We recommend diversification of research topics of both fundamental and applied nature addressing multiple pathosystems. Increasing preparedness through knowledge acquisition is the best strategy to anticipate and manage diseases caused by this pathogen, described as "the most dangerous plant bacterium known worldwide."

A scoping review of academic and grey literature on migrant health research conducted in Scotland.

BACKGROUND: Migration to Scotland has increased since 2002 with an increase in European residents and participation in the Asylum dispersal scheme. Scotland has become more ethnically diverse, and 10% of the current population were born abroad. Migration and ethnicity are determinants of health, and information on the health status of migrants to Scotland and their access to and barriers to care facilitates the planning and delivery of equitable health services. This study aimed to scope existing peer-reviewed research and grey literature to identify gaps in evidence regarding the health of migrants in Scotland. METHODS: A scoping review on the health of migrants in Scotland was carried out for dates January 2002 to March 2023, inclusive of peer-reviewed journals and grey literature. CINAHL/ Web of Science/SocIndex and Medline databases were systematically searched along with government and third-sector websites. The searches identified 2166 journal articles and 170 grey literature documents for screening. Included articles were categorised according to the World Health Organisation's 2016 Strategy and Action Plan for Refugee and Migrant Health in the European region. This approach builds on a previously published literature review on Migrant Health in the Republic of Ireland. RESULTS: Seventy-one peer reviewed journal articles and 29 grey literature documents were included in the review. 66% were carried out from 2013 onwards and the majority focused on asylum seekers or unspecified migrant groups. Most research identified was on the World Health Organisation's strategic areas of right to health of refugees, social determinants of health and public health planning and strengthening health systems. There were fewer studies on the strategic areas of frameworks for collaborative action, preventing communicable disease, preventing non-communicable disease, health screening and assessment and improving health information and communication. CONCLUSION: While research on migrant health in Scotland has increased in recent years significant gaps remain. Future priorities should include studies of undocumented migrants, migrant workers, and additional research is required on the issue of improving health information and communication.

Portfolio analysis of global tobacco control research funding at the National Cancer Institute, 2000-2019.

INTRODUCTION: Research in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), where the majority of global tobacco users reside, is critical to addressing the global tobacco epidemic. This analysis describes the global tobacco control research portfolio funded by the National Cancer Institute from fiscal years 2000 to 2019. METHODS: We used the National Institutes of Health Query, View, Report database to identify extramural grants relevant to global tobacco control research. Abstracts were analyzed to describe grant characteristics, including topic areas, tobacco products, countries, and regions of focus. Bibliometric and co-authorship network analyses were performed for publications associated with relevant grants. RESULTS: Of the 93 relevant grants with foreign (non-US) involvement, the majority (83.9%) supported research in upper and lower middle-income countries. The majority of grants (86.0%) focused on cigarettes, with a small subset of grants addressing smokeless tobacco, waterpipe use, or other non-cigarette products. Most grants focused on at least one of the six tobacco control policy measures in the World Health Organization MPOWER package; almost half (48.4%) focused on monitoring tobacco use and around one-third (32.3%) focused on offering tobacco cessation treatment, while other MPOWER measures received less attention in the research portfolio. While most of these grants, and the funding initiatives that supported them, emphasized research in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), only 3 of 93 grants were awarded directly to LMIC-based institutions. CONCLUSIONS: There is a critical need for research to develop and test strategies to adapt, implement, and scale up evidence-based interventions across diverse LMIC settings. This study identified gaps in research activity that should be addressed to strengthen global tobacco control research capacity.

Efficacy of Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence (CoBRE) grants to build research capacity in underrepresented states.

Federal funding for research has immediate and long-term economic impact. Since federal research funding is regionally concentrated and not geographically distributed, the benefits are not fully realized in some regions of the country. The Established (previously Experimental) Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) programs at several agencies, for example, the National Science Foundation, and the Institutional Development Award (IDeA) program at the National Institutes of Health were created to increase competitiveness for funding in states with historically low levels of federal funding. The Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence (CoBRE) award program is a component of the IDeA program. The CoBRE grants support research core facilities to develop research infrastructure. These grants also support the research projects of junior investigators, under the guidance of mentoring teams of senior investigators, to develop human resources at these institutions. Few studies have assessed the effectiveness of these programs. This study examines the investment and outcomes of the CoBRE grants from 2000 through 2022. The maturation of junior investigators into independently funded principal investigators is comparable to other mentoring programs supported by NIH. The investment in research cores resulted in substantial research productivity, measured by publications. Despite the successes of individual investigators and increased research infrastructure and productivity, the geographic distribution of federal and NIH research dollars has not changed. These results will be informative in consideration of policies designed to enhance the geographic distribution of federal research dollars.

Balancing best practice and reality in behavioral intervention development: A survey of principal investigators funded by the National Institutes of Health.

Preliminary studies play a prominent role in the development of large-scale behavioral interventions. Though recommendations exist to guide the execution and interpretation of preliminary studies, these assume optimal scenarios which may clash with realities faced by researchers. The purpose of this study was to explore how principal investigators (PIs) balance expectations when conducting preliminary studies. We surveyed PIs funded by the National Institutes of Health to conduct preliminary behavioral interventions between 2000 and 2020. Four hundred thirty-one PIs (19% response rate) completed the survey (November 2021 to January 2022, 72% female, mean 21 years post-terminal degree). Most PIs were aware of translational models and believed preliminary studies should precede larger trials but also believed a single preliminary study provided sufficient evidence to scale. When asked about the relative importance of preliminary efficacy (i.e. changes in outcomes) and feasibility (i.e. recruitment, acceptance/adherence) responses varied. Preliminary studies were perceived as necessary to successfully compete for research funding, but among PIs who had peer-reviewed federal-level grants applications (n = 343 [80%]), responses varied about what should be presented to secure funding. Confusion surrounding the definition of a successful, informative preliminary study poses a significant challenge when developing behavior interventions. This may be due to a mismatch between expectations surrounding preliminary studies and the realities of the research enterprise in which they are conducted. To improve the quality of preliminary studies and advance the field of behavioral interventions, additional funding opportunities, more transparent criteria in grant reviews, and additional training for grant reviewers are suggested.

Initial testing of behavioral interventions can provide valuable information about the methods of the intervention and whether it is effective. However, recommendations that provide researchers with guidance on how to best conduct pilot studies assume ideal circumstances. The mismatch between what can be realistically accomplished in a preliminary study, and what researchers expect from preliminary studies creates confusion. As a result, it is difficult for researchers to judge the quality, relevance, and potential of preliminary studies. This study suggests more research funding opportunities, clearer rules for reviewing grant applications, and more training for the people who review these applications could help improve preliminary studies and create more effective health behavior programs.

Orthopedic surgeon-scientist representation is low among National Institutes of Health grants for rotator cuff research.

Background: The purpose of this study is to characterize National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding for rotator cuff research and evaluate the impact of orthopedic surgeons on this portfolio. Methods: The NIH's Research Portfolio Online Reporting Tools Expenditures and Results database was queried for "rotator cuff repair" or "rotator cuff tear" from the 2011 to 2021 fiscal years. Compound annual growth rates were calculated and grants were categorized by basic, clinical, or translational research. Funding totals were compared by Principal Investigator (PI) and grant characteristics. Results: A total of 52 grants were awarded to 38 PIs between 2011 and 2021, totaling $40,156,859. Annual NIH funding for rotator cuff tear and rotator cuff repair increased by a Compound annual growth rate of 11.0% from 2011 to 2021, compared to 3.4% for the total NIH budget. Orthopedic surgeon-scientists received $9,208,212 (22.9%), most commonly through R01 (80.5%) and K08 (7.1%) mechanisms. No significant difference in funding was found by PI sex (P = .332), degree (P = .460), academic rank (P = .118), or researcher type (P = .227). Professors had a higher h-index than associate and assistant professors (P = .001). Orthopedic surgeon-scientists had a higher h-index (mean 36.3 ± 9.4) compared to clinician-scientists (mean 8.0 ± 1.4) and research-scientists (35.5 ± 40.7) (P = .044). Clinical topics receiving the highest funding were rehabilitation (23.9%), diagnosis, (22.3%) and surgical technique (14.8%). Orthopedic surgeon-scientists acquired funding for diagnosis (57.1%), rehabilitation (17.0%), and surgical technique (14.5%). Discussion: While NIH funding for rotator cuff research is growing, orthopedic surgeon representation is low. Future studies should evaluate barriers to obtaining funding for orthopedic surgeon-scientists.

Musculoskeletal health: an ecological study assessing disease burden and research funding.

Background: Exacerbated by an aging population, musculoskeletal diseases are a chronic and growing problem in the United States that impose significant health and economic burdens. The objective of this study was to analyze the correlation between the burden of diseases and the federal funds assigned to health-related research through the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Methods: An ecological study design was used to examine the relationship between NIH research funding and disease burden for 60 disease categories. We used the Global Burden of Disease (GBD) Study 2019 to measure disease burden and the NIH Research, Condition, and Disease Categories (RCDC) data to identify 60 disease categories aligned with available GBD data. NIH funding data was obtained from the RCDC system and the NIH Office of Budget. Using linear regression models, we observed that musculoskeletal diseases were among the most underfunded (i.e., negative residuals from the model) with respect to disease burden. Findings: Musculoskeletal diseases were underfunded, with neck pain being the most underfunded at only 0.83% of expected funding. Low back pain, osteoarthritis, and rheumatoid arthritis were also underfunded at 13.88%, 35.08%, and 66.26%, respectively. Musculoskeletal diseases were the leading cause of years lived with disability and the third leading cause in terms of prevalence and disability-adjusted life years. Despite the increasing burden of these diseases, the allocation of NIH funding to the National Institute of Arthritis and Musculoskeletal and Skin Diseases (NIAMS) has remained low compared to other institutes. Interpretation: Despite the increasing health burden and economic cost of $980 billion annually, the allocation of NIH funding to the NIAMS has remained low compared to other institutes. These findings suggest that the NIH may need to reassess its allocation of research funding to align with the current health challenges of our country. Furthermore, these clinically relevant observations highlight the need to increase research funding for musculoskeletal diseases and improve their prevention, diagnosis, and treatment. Funding: No funding.

Efficacy of Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence (CoBRE) Grants to Build Research Capacity in Underrepresented States.

Federal funding for research has immediate and long-term economic impact. Since federal research funding is regionally concentrated and not geographically distributed, the benefits are not fully realized in some regions of the country. The Established (previously Experimental) Program to Stimulate Competitive Research (EPSCoR) programs at several agencies, e.g. the National Science Foundation, and the Institutional Development Award (IDeA) program at the National Institutes of Health were created to increase competitiveness for funding in states with historically low levels of federal funding. The Centers of Biomedical Research Excellence (CoBRE) award program is a component of the IDeA program. The CoBRE grants support research core facilities to develop research infrastructure. These grants also support the research projects of junior investigators, under the guidance of mentoring teams of senior investigators, to develop human resources at these institutions. Few studies have assessed the effectiveness of these programs. This study examines the investment and outcomes of the CoBRE grants from 2000 through 2022. The maturation of junior investigators into independently funded principal investigators is comparable to other mentoring programs supported by NIH. The investment in research cores resulted in substantial research productivity, measured by publications. Despite the successes of individual investigators and increase research infrastructure and productivity, the geographic distribution of federal and NIH research dollars has not changed. These results will be informative in consideration of policies designed to enhance the geographic distribution of federal research dollars.

A lack of focus on data sharing, stakeholders, and economic benefits in current global green infrastructure planning.

Green infrastructure (GI) is increasingly popular in solving urban environmental challenges and enhancing ecosystem services. Yet the research status and challenges of GI planning have not been comprehensively benchmarked to date. We explored the GI types, actions, goals, and spatiotemporal characteristics of GI planning cases worldwide based on the available literature. The challenges of GI planning were also investigated by the cases included in this manuscript. Additionally, the urban governance solutions to address these challenges were proposed. We found that multi-type GI planning is the most popular. Data sharing, stakeholder participation, economic benefits and research funding for GI planning research were generally inadequate, although they have improved trend over time. Multiple-goal GI planning frequently has higher levels of data sharing, stakeholder participation and economic benefits than GI planning that just takes into account one purpose. We conclude that the future transformation of GI planning requires efficient data sharing mechanisms, effective co-design among stakeholders, systematic business models, and available research funding.

The Rich Get Richer: The Matthew Effect in Open Payments.

INTRODUCTION: The Matthew Effect refers to a pattern of accumulated advantage, specifically how social status can lead to increased wealth and recognition. The Physician Payments Sunshine Act of the Affordable Care Act requires industry payments and the affiliated hospital to be publicly available through the Open Payments Database (OPD). The US News and World Report (USNWR) publishes a ranking of best medical school (research) programs yearly. The Blue Ridge Institute for Medical Research (BRIMR) ranks medical schools annually by the amount of funding from the National Institutes of Health (NIH). Whether medical school-affiliated hospitals with higher social ranking and more NIH funding receive more industrial support is unknown. This study aims to evaluate the relationship between open payment of medical school-affiliated hospitals and USNWR and BRIMR ranking. METHODS: We performed a cross-sectional analysis of the OPD for the fiscal year of 2021. Hospital industry payment information was collected for affiliated hospitals in general and research categories. NIH funding data and program rankings were collected from BRIMR and USNWR, respectively. All data were collected for the fiscal year of 2021. The open payments of schools ranked in the top 50 for USNWR (n = 50) and BRIMR (n = 49) were compared to the schools not ranked in the top 50 using SPSS with chi-squared and Mann-Whitney U tests. A multivariate linear regression was performed to evaluate the association between open payments, USNWR ranking, and BRIMR ranking. RESULTS: A total of 91 medical schools were included in this study. The top 50 ranked medical schools by BRIMR were found to have a higher median of total open payment ($5,652,628 versus $2,558,372, P < 0.001), open payment in research ($4,707,297 versus $1,992,597, P = 0.003), and general open payment ($1,083,018 versus $392,045, P < 0.001). When ranked by USNWR, the top 50 ranked medical schools were found similarly to have a higher median of total open payment (P < 0.001), open payment in research (P < 0.001), and general open payment (P < 0.001). USNWR ranking was an independent predictor of more total open payment (Coefficient 0.016, 95% confidence interval 0.002-0.029, P = 0.026) and research open payment (coefficient 0.018, 95% confidence interval 0.002-0.034, P = 0.028). USNWR ranking was not found to predict general open payments. BRIMR ranking was not associated with open payment in total, research, or general. CONCLUSIONS: Hospital open payments were associated with the social reputation of their medical schools. NIH funding was not associated with open payments. A Matthew effect exists in current industry payments to medical school-affiliated hospitals.

European food safety research: An explorative study with funding experts' consultation.

The European research area exhibits considerable opacity and fragmentation in food safety research funding and organizational structures, impeding the exploitation of existing research potential across European countries. Given that food safety is inherently linked to the societal challenges of our time, identifying and removing existing barriers to research funding in this area is crucial. Towards investigating this matter, interviews were conducted with funding bodies from six European countries to assess key issues related to research funding in general and food safety in particular. Funding experts were then invited to a workshop to jointly discuss the challenges identified and explore strategies to address them. Evaluation of the food safety research funding situation in selected European countries revealed both convergences and significant differences among national funding bodies. Engaging with funding experts provided invaluable insights into the issues encountered with research funding, such as inadequate call management staff or insufficient research funds, culminating in a set of recommendations for action to remedy the situation.

The post-award effort of managing and reporting on funded research: a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Reporting is a mechanism for funding organisations to monitor and manage the progress, outputs, outcomes, and impacts of the research they fund. Inconsistent approaches to reporting and post-award management, and a growing demand for research information, can lead to perception of unnecessary administrative effort that impacts on decision-making and research activity. Identifying this effort, and what stakeholders see as unmet need for improvement, is crucial if funders and Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are to streamline their practices and provide better support with reporting activities. In this review, we summarise the processes in post-award management, compare current practices, and explore the purpose of collecting information on funded research. We also identify areas where unnecessary effort is perceived and improvement is needed, using previously reported solutions to inform recommendations for funders and HEIs. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of the relevant research and grey literature. Electronic searches of databases, and manual searches of journals and funder websites, resulted in inclusion of 52 records and 11 websites. Information on HEI and funder post-award management processes was extracted, catalogued, and summarised to inform discussion. RESULTS: Post-award management is a complex process that serves many purposes but requires considerable effort, particularly in the set up and reporting of research. Perceptions of unnecessary effort stem from inefficiencies in compliance, data management and reporting approaches, and there is evidence of needed improvement in mechanisms of administrative support, research impact assessment, monitoring, and evaluation. Solutions should focus on integrating digital systems to reduce duplication, streamlining reporting methods, and improving administrative resources in HEIs. CONCLUSIONS: Funders and HEIs should work together to support a more efficient post-award management process. The value of research information, and how it is collected and used, can be improved by aligning practices and addressing the specific issues highlighted in this review.