IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/p/osf/socarx/ckpf8.html
   My bibliography  Save this paper

Do national funding organizations properly address the diseases with the highest burden? - Observations from China and the UK

Author

Listed:
  • Zhang, Lin
  • ZHAO, Wenjing
  • Liu, Jianhua
  • Sivertsen, Gunnar
  • HUANG, Ying

Abstract

Recent years have witnessed an incipient shift in science policy from a focus mainly on academic excellence to a focus that also takes into account “societal impact”. This shift raises the question as to whether medical research has given proper attention to the diseases imposing the greatest burden on society. Therefore, with the aim of identifying correlations between research funding priorities and public demand in health, we examine grants issued by the major medical research funding bodies of China and the UK during the decade 2006-2017 and compare the focus of their funded projects with the diseases that carry the highest burden of death, risk, or loss of health. The results indicate that the funding decisions of both nations do correspond to the illnesses with the highest health impact on their citizens. For both regions, the greatest health concerns surround non-communicable diseases, and neoplasms and cardiovascular disease in particular. In China, national health priorities have remained focused on these illnesses for the benefit of its own population, whereas the UK has funded a wider variety of research, extending to projects with impacts outside its borders to some developing countries. Additionally, despite an increased incidence of mental illness and HIV/AIDs in China, there is evidence that less priority has been given to these conditions. Both of these health areas seem to require more attention from China’s national funding agencies and the society in general. Methodologically, this study can serve as an example of how to conduct analyses related to public health issues by combining informetric methods and data with data and tools from other fields, thereby inspiring other scientometrics studies.

Suggested Citation

  • Zhang, Lin & ZHAO, Wenjing & Liu, Jianhua & Sivertsen, Gunnar & HUANG, Ying, 2020. "Do national funding organizations properly address the diseases with the highest burden? - Observations from China and the UK," SocArXiv ckpf8, Center for Open Science.
  • Handle: RePEc:osf:socarx:ckpf8
    DOI: 10.31219/osf.io/ckpf8
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://osf.io/download/5eaf68c269d3e100a9def1bb/
    Download Restriction: no

    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.31219/osf.io/ckpf8?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. Ciarli, Tommaso & Ràfols, Ismael, 2019. "The relation between research priorities and societal demands: The case of rice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 949-967.
    2. Ji-ping Gao & Cheng Su & Hai-yan Wang & Li-hua Zhai & Yun-tao Pan, 2019. "Research fund evaluation based on academic publication output analysis: the case of Chinese research fund evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 959-972, May.
    3. Cassi, Lorenzo & Lahatte, Agénor & Rafols, Ismael & Sautier, Pierre & de Turckheim, Élisabeth, 2017. "Improving fitness: Mapping research priorities against societal needs on obesity," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(4), pages 1095-1113.
    4. Ashkan Ebadi & Andrea Schiffauerova, 2016. "How to boost scientific production? A statistical analysis of research funding and other influencing factors," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 106(3), pages 1093-1116, March.
    5. Richard Klavans & Kevin W Boyack, 2017. "The Research Focus of Nations: Economic vs. Altruistic Motivations," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 12(1), pages 1-27, January.
    6. Fernanda Morillo, 2019. "Collaboration and impact of research in different disciplines with international funding (from the EU and other foreign sources)," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 120(2), pages 807-823, August.
    7. Xianwen Wang & Di Liu & Kun Ding & Xinran Wang, 2012. "Science funding and research output: a study on 10 countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 91(2), pages 591-599, May.
    8. Mursheda Begum & Grant Lewison & John S F Wright & Elena Pallari & Richard Sullivan, 2016. "European Non-Communicable Respiratory Disease Research, 2002-13: Bibliometric Study of Outputs and Funding," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 11(4), pages 1-15, April.
    9. Li Tang & Guangyuan Hu & Weishu Liu, 2017. "Funding acknowledgment analysis: Queries and caveats," Journal of the Association for Information Science & Technology, Association for Information Science & Technology, vol. 68(3), pages 790-794, March.
    10. Leslie A Gillum & Christopher Gouveia & E Ray Dorsey & Mark Pletcher & Colin D Mathers & Charles E McCulloch & S Claiborne Johnston, 2011. "NIH Disease Funding Levels and Burden of Disease," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(2), pages 1-9, February.
    11. Wallace, Matthew L. & Ràfols, Ismael, 2018. "Institutional shaping of research priorities: A case study on avian influenza," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(10), pages 1975-1989.
    12. James A Evans & Jae-Mahn Shim & John P A Ioannidis, 2014. "Attention to Local Health Burden and the Global Disparity of Health Research," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(4), pages 1-9, April.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Citations

    Citations are extracted by the CitEc Project, subscribe to its RSS feed for this item.
    as


    Cited by:

    1. Lutz Bornmann & Robin Haunschild & Vanash M Patel, 2020. "Are papers addressing certain diseases perceived where these diseases are prevalent? The proposal to use Twitter data as social-spatial sensors," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 15(11), pages 1-22, November.

    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. Lin Zhang & Wenjing Zhao & Jianhua Liu & Gunnar Sivertsen & Ying Huang, 2020. "Do national funding organizations properly address the diseases with the highest burden?: Observations from China and the UK," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1733-1761, November.
    2. Lin Zhang & Wenjing Zhao & Jianhua Liu & Gunnar Sivertsen & Ying Huang, 0. "Do national funding organizations properly address the diseases with the highest burden?: Observations from China and the UK," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 0, pages 1-29.
    3. Confraria, Hugo & Wang, Lili, 2020. "Medical research versus disease burden in Africa," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 49(3).
    4. Ciarli, Tommaso & Ràfols, Ismael, 2019. "The relation between research priorities and societal demands: The case of rice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 949-967.
    5. Wallace, Matthew L. & Ràfols, Ismael, 2018. "Institutional shaping of research priorities: A case study on avian influenza," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 47(10), pages 1975-1989.
    6. Weishu Liu & Li Tang & Guangyuan Hu, 2020. "Funding information in Web of Science: an updated overview," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 122(3), pages 1509-1524, March.
    7. Star X. Zhao & Wen Lou & Alice M. Tan & Shuang Yu, 2018. "Do funded papers attract more usage?," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(1), pages 153-168, April.
    8. Zhao, Star X. & Tan, Alice M. & Yu, Shuang & Xu, Xin, 2018. "Analyzing the research funding in physics: The perspective of production and collaboration at institution level," Physica A: Statistical Mechanics and its Applications, Elsevier, vol. 508(C), pages 662-674.
    9. Mu-Hsuan Huang & Mei-Jhen Huang, 2018. "An analysis of global research funding from subject field and funding agencies perspectives in the G9 countries," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 115(2), pages 833-847, May.
    10. Ferran Giones & Daniel Laufs & Carsten Schultz, 2020. "Co-creating Science Commercialization Opportunities for Blue Biotechnologies: The FucoSan Project," Sustainability, MDPI, Open Access Journal, vol. 12(14), pages 1-19, July.
    11. Janzwood, Scott, 2021. "R&D priority-setting for global catastrophic risks: The case of the NASA planetary defense mission," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 50(6).
    12. Belén Álvarez-Bornstein & Adrián A. Díaz-Faes & María Bordons, 2019. "What characterises funded biomedical research? Evidence from a basic and a clinical domain," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 805-825, May.
    13. Hui Li & Weishu Liu, 2020. "Same same but different: self-citations identified through Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2723-2732, September.
    14. Fernandez Martinez, Roberto & Lostado Lorza, Ruben & Santos Delgado, Ana Alexandra & Piedra, Nelson, 2021. "Use of classification trees and rule-based models to optimize the funding assignment to research projects: A case study of UTPL," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(1).
    15. Cătălin Emilian Boja & Claudiu Herţeliu & Marian Dârdală & Bogdan Vasile Ileanu, 2018. "Day of the week submission effect for accepted papers in Physica A, PLOS ONE, Nature and Cell," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 117(2), pages 887-918, November.
    16. Ji-ping Gao & Cheng Su & Hai-yan Wang & Li-hua Zhai & Yun-tao Pan, 2019. "Research fund evaluation based on academic publication output analysis: the case of Chinese research fund evaluation," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 119(2), pages 959-972, May.
    17. Huang, Cui & Yang, Chao & Su, Jun, 2021. "Identifying core policy instruments based on structural holes: A case study of China’s nuclear energy policy," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 15(2).
    18. Hui Li & Weishu Liu, 0. "Same same but different: self-citations identified through Scopus and Web of Science Core Collection," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 0, pages 1-10.
    19. Xin Xu & Alice M. Tan & Star X. Zhao, 2015. "Funding ratios in social science: the perspective of countries/territories level and comparison with natural sciences," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 104(3), pages 673-684, September.
    20. Belén Álvarez-Bornstein & Fernanda Morillo & María Bordons, 2017. "Funding acknowledgments in the Web of Science: completeness and accuracy of collected data," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 112(3), pages 1793-1812, September.

    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:osf:socarx:ckpf8. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: . General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

    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: OSF (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://arabixiv.org .

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

    IDEAS is a RePEc service hosted by the Research Division of the Federal Reserve Bank of St. Louis . RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.