46
views
0
recommends
+1 Recommend
0 collections
    0
    shares
      • Record: found
      • Abstract: found
      • Article: found
      Is Open Access

      Health research improves healthcare: now we have the evidence and the chance to help the WHO spread such benefits globally

      editorial

      Read this article at

      Bookmark
          There is no author summary for this article yet. Authors can add summaries to their articles on ScienceOpen to make them more accessible to a non-specialist audience.

          Abstract

          There has been a dramatic increase in the body of evidence demonstrating the benefits that come from health research. In 2014, the funding bodies for higher education in the UK conducted an assessment of research using an approach termed the Research Excellence Framework (REF). As one element of the REF, universities and medical schools in the UK submitted 1,621 case studies claiming to show the impact of their health and other life sciences research conducted over the last 20 years. The recently published results show many case studies were judged positively as providing examples of the wide range and extensive nature of the benefits from such research, including the development of new treatments and screening programmes that resulted in considerable reductions in mortality and morbidity.

          Analysis of specific case studies yet again illustrates the international dimension of progress in health research; however, as has also long been argued, not all populations fully share the benefits. In recognition of this, in May 2013 the World Health Assembly requested the World Health Organization (WHO) to establish a Global Observatory on Health Research and Development (R&D) as part of a strategic work-plan to promote innovation, build capacity, improve access, and mobilise resources to address diseases that disproportionately affect the world’s poorest countries.

          As editors of Health Research Policy and Systems ( HARPS), we are delighted that our journal has been invited to help inform the establishment of the WHO Global Observatory through a Call for Papers covering a range of topics relevant to the Observatory, including topics on which HARPS has published articles over the last few months, such as approaches to assessing research results, measuring expenditure data with a focus on R&D, and landscape analyses of platforms for implementing R&D. Topics related to research capacity building may also be considered. The task of establishing a Global Observatory on Health R&D to achieve the specified objectives will not be easy; nevertheless, this Call for Papers is well timed – it comes just at the point where the evidence of the benefits from health research has been considerably strengthened.

          Related collections

          Most cited references17

          • Record: found
          • Abstract: found
          • Article: not found

          The Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study (MASS) into the effect of abdominal aortic aneurysm screening on mortality in men: a randomised controlled trial.

          Opposing views have been published on the importance of ultrasound screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms. The Multicentre Aneurysm Screening Study was designed to assess whether or not such screening is beneficial. A population-based sample of men (n=67800) aged 65-74 years was enrolled, and each individual randomly allocated to either receive an invitation for an abdominal ultrasound scan (invited group, n=33839) or not (control group, n=33961). Men in whom abdominal aortic aneurysms (> or =3 cm in diameter) were detected were followed-up with repeat ultrasound scans for a mean of 4.1 years. Surgery was considered on specific criteria (diameter > or =5.5 cm, expansion > or =1 cm per year, symptoms). Mortality data were obtained from the Office of National Statistics, and an intention-to-treat analysis was based on cause of death. Quality of life was assessed with four standardised scales. The primary outcome measure was mortality related to abdominal aortic aneurysm. 27147 of 33839 (80%) men in the invited group accepted the invitation to screening, and 1333 aneurysms were detected. There were 65 aneurysm-related deaths (absolute risk 0.19%) in the invited group, and 113 (0.33%) in the control group (risk reduction 42%, 95% CI 22-58; p=0.0002), with a 53% reduction (95% CI 30-64) in those who attended screening. 30-day mortality was 6% (24 of 414) after elective surgery for an aneurysm, and 37% (30 of 81) after emergency surgery. Our results provide reliable evidence of benefit from screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms.
            Bookmark
            • Record: found
            • Abstract: found
            • Article: found
            Is Open Access

            How long does biomedical research take? Studying the time taken between biomedical and health research and its translation into products, policy, and practice

            Background The time taken, or ‘time lags’, between biomedical/health research and its translation into health improvements is receiving growing attention. Reducing time lags should increase rates of return to such research. However, ways to measure time lags are under-developed, with little attention on where time lags arise within overall timelines. The process marker model has been proposed as a better way forward than the current focus on an increasingly complex series of translation ‘gaps’. Starting from that model, we aimed to develop better methods to measure and understand time lags and develop ways to identify policy options and produce recommendations for future studies. Methods Following reviews of the literature on time lags and of relevant policy documents, we developed a new approach to conduct case studies of time lags. We built on the process marker model, including developing a matrix with a series of overlapping tracks to allow us to present and measure elements within any overall time lag. We identified a reduced number of key markers or calibration points and tested our new approach in seven case studies of research leading to interventions in cardiovascular disease and mental health. Finally, we analysed the data to address our study’s key aims. Results The literature review illustrated the lack of agreement on starting points for measuring time lags. We mapped points from policy documents onto our matrix and thus highlighted key areas of concern, for example around delays before new therapies become widely available. Our seven completed case studies demonstrate we have made considerable progress in developing methods to measure and understand time lags. The matrix of overlapping tracks of activity in the research and implementation processes facilitated analysis of time lags along each track, and at the cross-over points where the next track started. We identified some factors that speed up translation through the actions of companies, researchers, funders, policymakers, and regulators. Recommendations for further work are built on progress made, limitations identified and revised terminology. Conclusions Our advances identify complexities, provide a firm basis for further methodological work along and between tracks, and begin to indicate potential ways of reducing lags. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (doi:10.1186/1478-4505-13-1) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.
              Bookmark
              • Record: found
              • Abstract: found
              • Article: not found

              Population based randomised controlled trial on impact of screening on mortality from abdominal aortic aneurysm.

              To assess whether screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms in men reduces mortality. Population based randomised controlled trial of ultrasound screening, with intention to treat analysis of age standardised mortality. Community based screening programme in Western Australia. 41,000 men aged 65-83 years randomised to intervention and control groups. Invitation to ultrasound screening. Deaths from abdominal aortic aneurysm in the five years after the start of screening. The corrected response to invitation to screening was 70%. The crude prevalence was 7.2% for aortic diameter > or = 30 mm and 0.5% for diameter > or = 55 mm. Twice as many men in the intervention group than in the control group underwent elective surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysm (107 v 54, P = 0.002, chi2 test). Between scheduled screening and the end of follow up 18 men in the intervention group and 25 in the control group died from abdominal aortic aneurysm, yielding a mortality ratio of 0.61 (95% confidence interval 0.33 to 1.11). Any benefit was almost entirely in men aged between 65 and 75 years, where the ratio was reduced to 0.19 (0.04 to 0.89). At a whole population level screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms was not effective in men aged 65-83 years and did not reduce overall death rates. The success of screening depends on choice of target age group and the exclusion of ineligible men. It is also important to assess the current rate of elective surgery for abdominal aortic aneurysm as in some communities this may already approach a level that reduces the potential benefit of population based screening.
                Bookmark

                Author and article information

                Contributors
                stephen.hanney@brunel.ac.uk
                miguel.gonzalezblock@gmail.com
                Journal
                Health Res Policy Syst
                Health Res Policy Syst
                Health Research Policy and Systems
                BioMed Central (London )
                1478-4505
                3 March 2015
                3 March 2015
                2015
                : 13
                : 12
                Affiliations
                [ ]Health Economics Research Group, Brunel University London, Kingston Lane, Uxbridge, UB8 3PH UK
                [ ]Universidad Anáhuac, Av. Universidad Anáhuac 46, Lomas Anáhuac, 52786 Huixquilucan Mexico City, Mexico
                Article
                6
                10.1186/s12961-015-0006-y
                4351695
                25888723
                97db6b8e-8a6c-43f7-baf9-b017da569e1e
                © Hanney and González-Block; licensee BioMed Central. 2015

                This is an Open Access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License ( http://creativecommons.org/licenses/by/4.0), which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original work is properly credited. The Creative Commons Public Domain Dedication waiver ( http://creativecommons.org/publicdomain/zero/1.0/) applies to the data made available in this article, unless otherwise stated.

                History
                : 20 February 2015
                : 20 February 2015
                Categories
                Editorial
                Custom metadata
                © The Author(s) 2015

                Health & Social care
                assessing research benefits,capacity building,diseases of poorest countries,global health,global observatory,platforms for research implementation,research expenditure,screening for abdominal aortic aneurysms,world health organization,world health report 2013

                Comments

                Comment on this article