Assessment of the alignment between research funding allocation and consensus research priority areas in kidney cancer.

e16538 Background: Finite resources are available to fund research, and it is important to ensure stakeholder input is identified and prioritized. In this light, the KCRNC and CIHR sponsored a consensus-based priority-setting partnership that brought together a group of patients, caregivers, and clinicians to identify the top 10 research priorities in kidney cancer (Table), with a consensus document published in 2017. The final step of the prioritization process was to determine how research funding allocation has aligned with these previously identified priority areas. We report the results of this assessment. Methods: We queried publicly available Canadian and American research databases to identify all research funds allocated to kidney cancer from 2018-2020. Each funded project was assessed to determine which priority areas were addressed. We evaluated the percent of projects and percent of funding dollars (converted to USD) allocated to priority areas. Projects were stratified by country, type of research (basic science/translational or clinical), and cancer stage of focus (localized and/or metastatic). Results: A total of 121 kidney cancer research projects were funded between 2018-2020, with 15 Canadian projects (total $ = 1,906,398 USD) and 106 American projects (total $ = 56,317,386 USD). Most projects were basic science or translational (88%). Half (50%) of the projects focused on localized cancer while 26% of projects focused on metastatic kidney cancer. Overall, 49% of projects aligned to one priority area, 47% of projects aligned to multiple priority areas, and 4% of projects were not aligned to priority areas. The priority areas which received the most funding were causes of kidney cancer (priority #10, 64% of funds), biomarkers (priorities #1b+1c+5, 59%), and immunotherapies (priority #4, 41%)(Table). Unfunded priority areas were supportive care (priority #6) and the role of biopsy in kidney cancer management (priority #8). Conclusions: Nearly all kidney cancer projects funded since 2018 were aligned with one or multiple stakeholder-identified research priority areas, although some priority areas remain underfunded. Mechanisms to improve distribution of funding to all priority areas may be warranted.[Table: see text]

Determinants of Implementation of County Bursary Regulations in Kirinyaga County, Kenya

Kirinyaga County bursary scheme was introduced in the 2013/14 financial year. Bursary for secondary schools and higher level institutions being a National government function, the county sought advice from the then cabinet to offer state support to enhance access, ensure retention and reduce corruption in the provision of school education. Poor vetting criterion and compliance of guidelines have resulted in cronyism and nepotism which have plagued the bursary award process for decades. Poor monitoring & evaluation has piled up grievances with no follow up system. Lack of clear regulations on funding allocation has allowed political interference on budget cycles. The County bursary targets were students from poor households and the vulnerable. This study sought to examine the determinants of implementation of county bursary regulations in Kirinyaga County, Kenya. The study was guided by the following objectives; To establish the extent to which compliance of guidelines determines the implementation of County Bursary in Kirinyaga County, to explore the extent to which vetting criteria determines the implementation of County Bursary in Kirinyaga County, to examine the extent to which funding allocation determines the implementation of County Bursary in Kirinyaga County and to examine the extent to which monitoring of utilization of the bursary fund determines the implementation of County Bursary in Kirinyaga County. The new public administration theory that captures the concept of equity and fairness was adopted to explore the gaps during implementation of county bursary regulations in Kirinyaga County. The study sourced requisite data from 70 parents whose students benefited from bursary and 31 principals, both samples having been picked from the PTAs membership. The respondents were drawn using a combination of random and purposive sampling procedures. The study adopted descriptive design which was used to analyze primary data. Data was presented, interpreted and analyzed using frequency & percentage distributions, cross tabulations with STATA. Qualitative data in form of first hand experiences, informed opinions and suggestions, were analyzed using qualitative procedures and were used to strengthen quantitative findings. The results of the study indicated that majority of beneficiaries allocation by need were from poor households 51% followed by bright students at 29%. Similarly, orphans and special needs students both received 9.7%.

Bladder cancer research funding in Canada and the United States: A comparison between stakeholder priorities and resource allocation from 2017 to 2019.

422 Background: There is an increasing emphasis on patient-centered research to encourage cancer care that is responsive to patients' needs. Previously, the Bladder Cancer Advocacy Network (BCAN) Patient Survey Network (PSN) engaged patients and other key stakeholders and compiled a prioritized list of research questions in bladder cancer. However, it is uncertain whether these priorities have successfully guided subsequent resource allocation by funding agencies. The purpose of this study was to understand how bladder cancer research funding has been allocated in recent years and to determine whether funding patterns have aligned with patient and caregiver priorities. Methods: We investigated publicly available research databases online or contacted agencies directly to determine bladder cancer research fund allocation in Canada and the US from 2017 to 2019. Each funding competition and all funded projects were evaluated to assess whether they aligned with previously identified priority research areas. Trends in funding allocation were assessed and several key variables including country, year, agency focus, cancer stage, and funding amount were analyzed. Results: Fifteen agencies provided funding to bladder cancer research between 2017 and 2019, amounting to a total of $78,525,974 in funding for 298 projects across Canada and the US. Of this funding, $23,268,258 (30%) went towards projects addressing the stakeholder-identified high priority research questions, $15,575,064 (20%) went towards projects addressing lesser priority questions, and the remaining $39,682,652 (50%) funded projects addressing questions which did not align with previously identified stakeholder priorities. General agencies (non-bladder cancer-specific) funded more priority (high and lesser) projects than bladder cancer-specific agencies (p < 0.001). Among projects addressing non-muscle invasive bladder cancer, 36% of funding went to high priority areas, compared to 13% and 27% for muscle-invasive bladder cancer and metastatic bladder cancer, respectively. Among the top 10% of projects (n = 30) with the greatest funding amount (combined $43,249,792), 45% of the funding went to high priority areas, 21% went to lesser priority areas, and 34% went to non-priority areas. Conclusions: Of nearly $80,000,000 USD allocated to bladder cancer research in recent years, approximately half was allocated to projects addressing stakeholder-identified priority areas while half was allocated to projects that were not aligned with stakeholder priorities. More work is needed to ensure stronger alignment between stakeholder-identified priority areas and funding allocation in bladder cancer research.