IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0232077.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

The Profile of Non-Communicable Disease (NCD) research in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region: Analyzing the NCD burden, research outputs and international research collaboration

Author

Listed:
  • Ajay Aggarwal
  • Preeti Patel
  • Grant Lewison
  • Abdulkarim Ekzayez
  • Adam Coutts
  • Fouad M Fouad
  • Omar Shamieh
  • Rita Giacaman
  • Tezer Kutluk
  • Rima Abdul Khalek
  • Mark Lawler
  • Peter Boyle
  • Diana Sarfati
  • Richard Sullivan

Abstract

Objectives: Despite the rising risk factor exposure and non-communicable disease (NCD) mortality across the Middle East and the North African (MENA) region, public health policy responses have been slow and appear discordant with the social, economic and political circumstances in each country. Good health policy and outcomes are intimately linked to a research-active culture, particularly in NCD. In this study we present the results of a comprehensive analysis of NCD research with particular a focus on cancer, diabetes and cardiovascular disease in 10 key countries that represent a spectrum across MENA between 1991 and 2018. Methods: The study uses a well validated bibliometric approach to undertake a quantitative analysis of research output in the ten leading countries in biomedical research in the MENA region on the basis of articles and reviews in the Web of Science database. We used filters for each of the three NCDs and biomedical research to identify relevant papers in the WoS. The countries selected for the analyses were based on the volume of research outputs during the period of analysis and stability, included Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. Results: A total of 495,108 biomedical papers were found in 12,341 journals for the ten MENA countries (here we consider Turkey in the context of MENA). For all three NCDs, Turkey's output is consistently the highest. Iran has had considerable growth in research output to occupy second place across all three NCDs. It appears that, relative to their wealth (measured by GDP), some MENA countries, particularly Oman, Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, are substantially under-investing in biomedical research. In terms of investment on particular NCDs, we note the relatively greater commitment on cancer research compared with diabetes or cardiovascular disease in most MENA countries, despite cardiovascular disease causing the greatest health-related burden. When considering the citation impact of research outputs, there have been marked rises in citation scores in Qatar, Lebanon, United Arab Emirates and Oman. However, Turkey, which has the largest biomedical research output in the Middle East has the lowest citation scores overall. The level of intra-regional collaboration in NCD research is highly variable. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are the dominant research collaborators across the MENA region. However, Turkey and Iran, which are amongst the leading research-active countries in the area, show little evidence of collaboration. With respect to international collaboration, the United States and United Kingdom are the dominant research partners across the region followed by Germany and France. Conclusion: The increase in research activity in NCDs across the MENA region countries during the time period of analysis may signal both an increasing focus on NCDs which reflects general global trends, and greater investment in research in some countries. However, there are several risks to the sustainability of these improvements that have been identified in particular countries within the region. For example, a lack of suitably trained researchers, low political commitment and poor financial support, and minimal international collaboration which is essential for wider global impact.

Suggested Citation

  • Ajay Aggarwal & Preeti Patel & Grant Lewison & Abdulkarim Ekzayez & Adam Coutts & Fouad M Fouad & Omar Shamieh & Rita Giacaman & Tezer Kutluk & Rima Abdul Khalek & Mark Lawler & Peter Boyle & Diana Sa, 2020. "The Profile of Non-Communicable Disease (NCD) research in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region: Analyzing the NCD burden, research outputs and international research collaboration," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(4), pages 1-19, April.
  • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0232077
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0232077
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0232077
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0232077&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0232077?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Grant Lewison & Guillermo Paraje, 2004. "The classification of biomedical journals by research level," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 60(2), pages 145-157, June.
    2. G. Lewison, 1999. "The definition and calibration of biomedical subfields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 46(3), pages 529-537, November.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Rons, Nadine, 2018. "Bibliometric approximation of a scientific specialty by combining key sources, title words, authors and references," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 12(1), pages 113-132.
    2. Lakshmi Balachandran Nair & Michael Gibbert, 2016. "What makes a ‘good’ title and (how) does it matter for citations? A review and general model of article title attributes in management science," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 107(3), pages 1331-1359, June.
    3. Boyack, Kevin W. & Patek, Michael & Ungar, Lyle H. & Yoon, Patrick & Klavans, Richard, 2014. "Classification of individual articles from all of science by research level," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(1), pages 1-12.
    4. Grant Lewison & Richard Sullivan, 2015. "Conflicts of interest statements on biomedical papers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 102(3), pages 2151-2159, March.
    5. Grit Laudel, 2003. "Studying the brain drain: Can bibliometric methods help?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 57(2), pages 215-237, June.
    6. Elena Pallari & Grant Lewison, 2022. "Cardiovascular and cancer risk factors analysis for 2001–2020 from the global research output and European newspapers," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5159-5174, September.
    7. Victoria Bakare & Grant Lewison, 2017. "Country over-citation ratios," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 1199-1207, November.
    8. Xin Li & Xuli Tang & Wei Lu, 2023. "Tracking biomedical articles along the translational continuum: a measure based on biomedical knowledge representation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 128(2), pages 1295-1319, February.
    9. Bar-Ilan, Judit, 2008. "Informetrics at the beginning of the 21st century—A review," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 2(1), pages 1-52.
    10. Grant Lewison, 2002. "Researchers" and users" perceptions of the relative standing of biomedical papers in different journals," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 53(2), pages 229-240, February.
    11. Carmen López-Illescas & Ed C.M. Noyons & Martijn S. Visser & Félix De Moya-Anegón & Henk F. Moed, 2009. "Expansion of scientific journal categories using reference analysis: How can it be done and does it make a difference?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 79(3), pages 473-490, June.
    12. Grant Lewison & Guillermo Paraje, 2004. "The classification of biomedical journals by research level," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 60(2), pages 145-157, June.
    13. Ma, Jing & Abrams, Natalie F. & Porter, Alan L. & Zhu, Donghua & Farrell, Dorothy, 2019. "Identifying translational indicators and technology opportunities for nanomedical research using tech mining: The case of gold nanostructures," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 767-775.
    14. Anckaert, Paul-Emmanuel & Cassiman, David & Cassiman, Bruno, 2020. "Fostering practice-oriented and use-inspired science in biomedical research," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(2).
    15. Pedro Cosme Vieira & Aurora A. C. Teixeira, 2010. "Are finance, management, and marketing autonomous fields of scientific research? An analysis based on journal citations," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(3), pages 627-646, December.
    16. Li, Xin & Tang, Xuli, 2021. "Characterizing interdisciplinarity in drug research: A translational science perspective," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(4).
    17. Sultana, Atia & Lewison, Grant & Pallari, Elena, 2019. "The evaluation of mental disorders research reported in British and Irish newspapers between 2002 and 2013, and a comparison with the relative disease burdens and with research outputs in the two coun," Health Policy, Elsevier, vol. 123(4), pages 419-426.
    18. Grant Lewison & Thomas Turnbull, 2010. "News in brief and features in New Scientist magazine and the biomedical research papers that they cite, August 2008 to July 2009," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 85(1), pages 345-359, October.
    19. Jacqueline Leta & Grant Lewison, 2003. "The contribution of women in Brazilian science: A case study in astronomy, immunology and oceanography," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 57(3), pages 339-353, July.
    20. Oriana Rainho Brás & Jean-Philippe Cointet & Alberto Cambrosio & Leonor David & João Arriscado Nunes & Fátima Cardoso & Carmen Jerónimo, 2017. "Oncology research in late twentieth century and turn of the century Portugal: a scientometric approach to its institutional and semantic dimensions," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 867-888, November.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0232077. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.