scholarly journals Biomedical and health research: an analysis of country participation and research fields in the EU’s Horizon 2020

Author(s):  
Federica Gallo ◽  
Adele Seniori Costantini ◽  
Maria Teresa Puglisi ◽  
Nigel Barton
2014 ◽  
pp. 1057 ◽  
Author(s):  
Christina Van der Feltz-Cornelis ◽  
Jim Van Os ◽  
Susanne Knappe ◽  
Gunter Schumann ◽  
Eduard Vieta ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 29 (Supplement_4) ◽  
Author(s):  
H Unger

Abstract Community-based participatory research (CBPR) is a collaborative approach to research that aims to improve the health of marginalized communities and reduce health disparities. It starts with a topic of concern for the community and involves iterative cycles of action and reflection to initiate change. Community members are involved as partners and trained as peer researchers to take an active role in the research process. Processes of capacity building and empowerment play a prominent role. As a general principle, participatory research does not primarily focus on health problems, but pays at least equal attention to the resources and capacities of communities. It places a strong focus on developing trust and reciprocity in research relationships. Regarding methodology, various empirical research methods are used in CBPR study designs, including qualitative, quantitative, mixed-methods and arts-based methods. Arts-based methods such as photovoice, digital storytelling, mapping and drawings facilitate the expression of lived experience, including sensitive aspects, through creative verbal and non-verbal means. These methods expand the available means of expression and as such are highly valuable in research fields where verbal communication is challenged by language barriers and diverse cultural backgrounds as well as sensitive topics and experiences. Participatory health research has been conducted with diverse migrant and refugee groups internationally. Due to legal and other reasons, refugees may be limited in their capacities for participation. The presentation will discuss the strengths and limitations of CBPR including structural obstacles to equitable partnerships.


2014 ◽  
Vol 11 (10) ◽  
pp. 10915-10939 ◽  
Author(s):  
Iman Elfeddali ◽  
Christina van der Feltz-Cornelis ◽  
Jim van Os ◽  
Susanne Knappe ◽  
Eduard Vieta ◽  
...  

2019 ◽  
Vol 4 (5) ◽  
pp. e001559
Author(s):  
Astrid Berner-Rodoreda ◽  
Eva Annette Rehfuess ◽  
Kerstin Klipstein-Grobusch ◽  
Frank Cobelens ◽  
Mario Raviglione ◽  
...  

Global Health has not featured as prominently in the European Union (EU) research agenda in recent years as it did in the first decade of the new millennium, and participation of low-income and middle-income countries (LMICs) in EU health research has declined substantially. The Horizon Europe Research and Innovation Framework adopted by the European Parliament in April 2019 for the period 2021–2027 will serve as an important funding instrument for health research, yet the proposed health research budget to be finalised towards the end of 2019 was reduced from 10% in the current framework, Horizon 2020, to 8% in Horizon Europe. Our analysis takes the evolvement of Horizon Europe from the initial framework of June 2018 to the framework agreed on in April 2019 into account. It shows that despite some improvements in terms of Global Health and reference to the Sustainable Development Goals, European industrial competitiveness continues to play a paramount role, with Global Health research needs and relevant health research for LMICs being only partially addressed. We argue that the globally interconnected nature of health and the transdisciplinary nature of health research need to be fully taken into account and acted on in the new European Research and Innovation Framework. A facilitated global research collaboration through Horizon Europe could ensure that Global Health innovations and solutions benefit all parts of the world including EU countries.


2013 ◽  
Vol 23 (5) ◽  
pp. 722-722 ◽  
Author(s):  
J. Browne ◽  
T. I. A. Sorensen

BMJ Open ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 9 (8) ◽  
pp. e030123 ◽  
Author(s):  
Katharine A Rendle ◽  
Corey M Abramson ◽  
Sarah B Garrett ◽  
Meghan C Halley ◽  
Daniel Dohan

The objective of this commentary is to develop a framework for assessing the rigour of qualitative approaches that identifies and distinguishes between the diverse objectives of qualitative health research, guided by a narrative review of the published literature on qualitative guidelines and standards from peer-reviewed journals and national funding organisations that support health services research, patient-centered outcomes research and other applied health research fields. In this framework, we identify and distinguish three objectives of qualitative studies in applied health research: exploratory, descriptive and comparative. For each objective, we propose methodological standards that may be used to assess and improve rigour across all study phases—from design to reporting. Similar to hierarchies of quality of evidence within quantitative studies, we argue that standards for qualitative rigour differ, appropriately, for studies with different objectives and should be evaluated as such. Distinguishing between different objectives of qualitative health research improves the ability to appreciate variation in qualitative studies and to develop appropriate evaluations of the rigour and success of qualitative studies in meeting their stated objectives. Researchers, funders and journal editors should consider how further developing and adopting the framework for assessing qualitative rigour outlined here may advance the rigour and potential impact of this important mode of inquiry.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Alicia Rosello ◽  
Rosanna C Barnard ◽  
David R. M. Smith ◽  
Stephanie Evans ◽  
Fiona Grimm ◽  
...  

Background COVID-19 outbreaks are still occurring in English care homes despite the non-pharmaceutical interventions (NPIs) in place. Methods We developed a stochastic compartmental model to simulate the spread of SARS-CoV-2 within an English care home. We quantified the outbreak risk under the NPIs already in place, the role of community prevalence in driving outbreaks, and the relative contribution of all importation routes into the care home. We also considered the potential impact of additional control measures, namely: increasing staff and resident testing frequency, using lateral flow antigen testing (LFD) tests instead of PCR, enhancing infection prevention and control (IPC), increasing the proportion of residents isolated, shortening the delay to isolation, improving the effectiveness of isolation, restricting visitors and limiting staff to working in one care home. Findings The model suggests that importation of SARS-CoV-2 by staff, from the community, is the main driver of outbreaks, that importation by visitors or from hospitals is rare, and that the past testing strategy (monthly testing of residents and daily testing of staff by PCR) likely provides negligible benefit in preventing outbreaks. Daily staff testing by LFD was 39% (95% 18-55%) effective in preventing outbreaks at 30 days compared to no testing. Interpretation Increasing the frequency of testing in staff and enhancing IPC are important to preventing importations to the care home. Further work is needed to understand the impact of vaccination in this population, which is likely to be very effective in preventing outbreaks. Funding The National Institute for Health Research, European Union Horizon 2020, Canadian Institutes of Health Research, French National Research Agency, UK Medical Research Council. The World Health Organisation funded the development of the COS-LTCF Shiny application.


2021 ◽  
Author(s):  
Marija Purgar ◽  
Tin Klanjscek ◽  
Antica Culina

‘Ignorance is expensive’. The statement also applies to ignorance of research inefficiencies that can generate huge waste: 85% of health research, amounting to $170 billion annually, is avoidably wasted. This alarming finding elicited a number of responses that have since reduced the waste in health research. Commonality of research and dissemination practices implies that other scientific fields could also benefit from identifying and quantifying waste and acting to reduce it. Yet, no estimate of research waste is available for other fields. Given that ecological issues interweave most of the UN sustainable development goals, we argue tackling research waste in ecology should be prioritized.Our study leads the way. We estimate components of waste in ecological research, based on a systematic review and a meta-analysis. Shockingly, our results suggest only 11%-18% of conducted ecological research reaches its full informative value. Our duty towards science, environment, organisms we study, and the public dictates that we should urgently act and reduce this considerable yet preventable loss, and harness the full potential of ecological research. We propose to achieve this through actions from researchers, funders, journals, and academic institutions. Finally, we call for other research fields to adopt our framework and derive comparable estimates across scientific disciplines.


2001 ◽  
Vol 6 (2) ◽  
pp. 62-68
Author(s):  
V J Ehlers

This conference, attended by more than 700 delegates from more than 100 countries, proved to stimulate thoughts about enhanced collaboration in the health research fields, among numerous stakeholders and among many countries with similar health care problems. *Please note: This is a reduced version of the abstract. Please refer to PDF for full text.


Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document