Footman Katharine, Chersich Matthew, Blaauw Duane, Campbell Oona Mr, Dhana Ashar, Kavanagh Josephine, Dumbaugh Mari, Thwala Siphiwe, Bijlmakers Leon, Vargas Emily, Kern Elinor, Becerra Francisco, Penn-Kekana Loveday
Global Health. 2014 Oct 29;10:72. doi: 10.1186/s12992-014-0072-x.
The priorities of research funding bodies govern the research agenda, which has important implications for the provision of evidence to inform policy. This study examines the research funding landscape for maternal health interventions in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs).
This review draws on a database of 2340 academic papers collected through a large-scale systematic mapping of research on maternal health interventions in LMICs published from 2000-2012. The names of funders acknowledged on each paper were extracted and categorised into groups. It was noted whether support took a specific form, such as staff fellowships or drugs. Variations between funder types across regions and topics of research were assessed.
Funding sources were only reported in 1572 (67%) of articles reviewed. A high number of different funders (685) were acknowledged, but only a few dominated funding of published research. Bilateral funders, national research agencies and private foundations were most prominent, while private companies were most commonly acknowledged for support 'in kind'. The intervention topics and geographic regions of research funded by the various funder types had much in common, with HIV being the most common topic and sub-Saharan Africa being the most common region for all types of funder. Publication outputs rose substantially for several funder types over the period, with the largest increase among bilateral funders.
A considerable number of organisations provide funding for maternal health research, but a handful account for most funding acknowledgements. Broadly speaking, these organisations address similar topics and regions. This suggests little coordination between funding agencies, risking duplication and neglect of some areas of maternal health research, and limiting the ability of organisations to develop the specialised skills required for systematically addressing a research topic. Greater transparency in reporting of funding is required, as the role of funders in the research process is often unclear.
研究资助机构的优先事项决定了研究议程,这对提供政策依据的证据具有重要意义。本研究考察了低收入和中等收入国家(LMICs)孕产妇健康干预措施的研究资助情况。
本综述利用了一个数据库,该数据库包含通过对2000年至2012年发表的关于LMICs孕产妇健康干预措施的研究进行大规模系统映射收集的2340篇学术论文。提取每篇论文中提及的资助者名称并进行分类。记录资助是否采取特定形式,如工作人员奖学金或药品。评估了不同资助者类型在不同地区和研究主题之间的差异。
在所审查的文章中,仅1572篇(67%)报告了资助来源。虽然有大量不同的资助者(685个)被提及,但只有少数资助者主导了已发表研究的资助。双边资助者、国家研究机构和私人基金会最为突出,而私人公司最常因“实物”支持而被提及。不同资助者类型资助的研究干预主题和地理区域有很多共同之处,艾滋病毒是最常见的主题,撒哈拉以南非洲是所有类型资助者最常见的区域。在此期间,几种资助者类型的出版物产出大幅增加,双边资助者的增幅最大。
相当多的组织为孕产妇健康研究提供资金,但大多数资助认可集中在少数几个组织。总体而言,这些组织关注的主题和区域相似。这表明资助机构之间缺乏协调,存在重复资助和忽视孕产妇健康研究某些领域的风险,并限制了各组织培养系统解决研究主题所需专业技能的能力。由于资助者在研究过程中的作用往往不明确,因此需要提高资助报告的透明度。