Suppr超能文献

将研究资金导向正确的研究项目:对澳大利亚研究组织在为健康研究项目提供资金方面使用的优先排序标准进行的回顾。

Directing research funds to the right research projects: a review of criteria used by research organisations in Australia in prioritising health research projects for funding.

机构信息

Griffith University Menzies Health Institute Queensland, Gold Coast, Queensland, Australia.

Griffith University Centre for Applied Health Economics, Nathan, Queensland, Australia.

出版信息

BMJ Open. 2018 Dec 22;8(12):e026207. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2018-026207.

Abstract

OBJECTIVES

Healthcare budgets are limited, and therefore, research funds should be wisely allocated to ensure high-quality, useful and cost-effective research. We aimed to critically review the criteria considered by major Australian organisations in prioritising and selecting health research projects for funding.

METHODS

We reviewed all grant schemes listed on the Australian Competitive Grants Register that were health-related, active in 2017 and with publicly available selection criteria on the funders' websites. Data extracted included scheme name, funding organisation, selection criteria and the relative weight assigned to each criterion. Selection criteria were grouped into five representative domains: relevance, appropriateness, significance, feasibility (including team quality) and cost-effectiveness (ie, value for money).

RESULTS

Thirty-six schemes were included from 158 identified. One-half of the schemes were under the National Health and Medical Research Council. The most commonly used criteria were research team quality and capability (94%), research plan clarity (94%), scientific quality (92%) and research impact (92%). Criteria considered less commonly were existing knowledge (22%), fostering collaboration (22%), research environment (19%), value for money (14%), disease burden (8%) and ethical/moral considerations (3%). In terms of representative domains, relevance was considered in 72% of the schemes, appropriateness in 92%, significance in 94%, feasibility in 100% and cost-effectiveness in 17%. The relative weights for the selection criteria varied across schemes with 5%-30% for relevance, 20%-60% for each appropriateness and significance, 20%-75% for feasibility and 15%-33% for cost-effectiveness.

CONCLUSIONS

In selecting research projects for funding, Australian research organisations focus largely on research appropriateness, significance and feasibility; however, value for money is most often overlooked. Research funding decisions should include an assessment of value for money in order to maximise return on research investment.

摘要

目的

医疗保健预算有限,因此,研究资金应明智分配,以确保高质量、有用且具有成本效益的研究。我们旨在批判性地审查澳大利亚主要组织在为资金资助优先考虑和选择健康研究项目时考虑的标准。

方法

我们审查了澳大利亚竞争拨款登记册上列出的所有与健康相关的拨款计划,这些计划在 2017 年活跃,并且在资助者的网站上有公开的选择标准。提取的数据包括计划名称、资助组织、选择标准以及为每个标准分配的相对权重。选择标准分为五个代表性领域:相关性、适当性、重要性、可行性(包括团队质量)和成本效益(即物有所值)。

结果

从 158 个确定的计划中包括了 36 个计划。其中一半的计划由国家健康与医学研究委员会资助。最常用的标准是研究团队的质量和能力(94%)、研究计划的清晰度(94%)、科学质量(92%)和研究影响(92%)。较少考虑的标准是现有知识(22%)、促进合作(22%)、研究环境(19%)、物有所值(14%)、疾病负担(8%)和道德/伦理考虑(3%)。就代表性领域而言,72%的计划考虑了相关性,92%的计划考虑了适当性,94%的计划考虑了重要性,100%的计划考虑了可行性,17%的计划考虑了成本效益。选择标准的相对权重因计划而异,相关性为 5%-30%,适当性和重要性各为 20%-60%,可行性为 20%-75%,成本效益为 15%-33%。

结论

在为资金资助选择研究项目时,澳大利亚研究组织主要关注研究的适当性、重要性和可行性;然而,物有所值往往被忽视。研究资助决策应包括对物有所值的评估,以最大限度地提高研究投资回报。

https://cdn.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/blobs/598a/6318516/821f6d2731d5/bmjopen-2018-026207f01.jpg

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验