PubMed Health⌕ Search

SEARCH · PubMed Health

Results for “Funds”

Explore indexed PubMed citations for clinical trials, systematic reviews and public health research. Read source abstracts and follow each citation to its original PubMed record.

Quote a phrase for an exact phrase match. Source license links do not imply unrestricted reuse.

At least 19 recordsLinked to original sources
PubMed1992

[Evaluation of the results of the research funded by the Health Research Fund in 1988].

BACKGROUND: To analyse the scientific product of research projects funded by Fondo de Investigación Sanitaria in 1988 emphasizing its relation to money granted. METHODS: 270 out of 610 projects were evaluated in relation to the amount granted. The number of papers published to each project and the impact factor assigned to the journals where these papers were published; we also assessed the mean cost of papers and impact factor units. These projects were coded following UNESCO classifications, and papers as per ISI standards. RESULTS: A total of 95 projects out of the 270 analysed produced no papers; the other 175 projects yielded 471 articles (2.7 per project); the mean cost of each article was 1.1 million pesetas, or 0.8 million if only the productive projects were considered. These papers reached a total of 818,709 impact factor units; the mean cost of the impact factor unit is 660,796 pesetas, or 459,626 pesetas if only productive projects are considered. CONCLUSIONS: Non productive projects were those that received less funding. 33% of projects produced papers published in journals with an assigned impact factor equal or inferior to one. There are evident differences among areas of knowledge in terms of impact factor. This study must be completed with a statistical analysis of reported data.

Evaluation Studies as Topic↗
PubMed1992

Industry-funded dermatologic research within academia in the United States: fiscal and ethical considerations.

Private-sector funding of biomedical research within academia may come from industry, foundations, the dermatologists themselves, and the public at large. Industry-funding is of benefit to both academia and industry. Industry may fund clinical and basic research and product testing. Industry is more willing to fund product testing and clinical research than basic research. Funds for dermatologic research may be obtained from manufacturers of drugs, medical devices, cosmetics, soaps, and detergents. Questions of academic freedom arise when research is funded by industry. The results of academic research are in the public domain; the results of intramural industry research are often proprietary, i.e., "trade secrets." When there is industry funding within academia, any restraints on publication should be held to a minimum and be temporary. Publication should occur in a timely fashion, although recognizing the need for delayed publication if the results concern patentable material. When there is a consultantship, pre-arranged terms of agreement may restrict communication. Patents usually are held by the investigator's institution. The funding company may be granted world-wide, royalty-bearing licenses. Conflicts of interest may arise during any research endeavor; this warrants close attention when the research is industry funded. Stock ownership, speaker fees, blind contracts, etc., should be avoided. In any communication, funding agreements should be stated. Indirect costs are a "necessary evil." There are non-research expenditures associated with all research projects for which the institution is justified in requesting compensation. Indirect costs must have definite connections to a project. As industrial funding of research within academia increases, various facets of the academia-industry relationship are receiving increasing attention. Several aspects of conflicts of interest and indirect costs must yet be resolved. When faced openly and directly, all of these issues are manageable and need not reduce the benefits to both industry and academia that are inherent in this relationship. Federal funding of academic research uses tax dollars; industry funding comes from private capital. Academia will benefit from the funding of academic biomedical research by industry. The ultimate beneficiary of the funding of academic research by industry, however, will be society at large as the medical advances derived from sound biomedical research and carefully controlled clinical trials aid patients. A solidly established academia-industry relationship is essential to the effective funding by industry of biomedical research within academia.

Biomedical Research↗
PubMed1992

An analysis of funding for general practice research in Australia.

OBJECTIVE: To describe the current status of funding for general practice research in Australia. DESIGN: A descriptive survey analysing funding arrangements of research projects included in a national research database, established by the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. SETTING AND PARTICIPANTS: Research projects involving, or directly related to, general practice that had commenced in Australia since 1 January, 1989. Responses were specifically sought from all universities, the Family Medicine Programme and the Royal Australian College of General Practitioners. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES: Extent and source(s) of funding received or requested, or both; relationship of funding received to the following: qualification and affiliations of the principal investigator; submission of the research project towards a higher degree; subject area(s) covered by the research; study design method used; and duration of project. RESULTS: A total of 237 projects from 130 principal investigators were included in the analysis. Of these, 149 (63%) had been submitted for funding and 98 (66%) had been successful. The amount of funding ranged between $300 and $855,600. The most common source of funding was the General Practice Evaluation Programme. Research contributing towards a higher degree was associated with successfully receiving funding. Other variables, including the study design and study area, were not significantly associated with an increased success of funding. CONCLUSIONS: The total amount of funds spent on general practice research is still small, relative to the size of the workforce. However, over half of general practice research undertaken in Australia is not submitted for funding. Of the research that is submitted, the success rate of receiving funds is high.

Australia↗
PubMed1992

Primary care research funding sources.

BACKGROUND: Numerous studies and anecdotal reports have identified lack of funding as a major obstacle to recruiting young physicians to academic medicine and to developing research in primary care. The focus of this study is the comparison of funding sources reported for published research in the primary care disciplines of family medicine, general internal medicine, pediatrics, and obstetrics and gynecology. METHODS: Articles from a representative sample of the journals of each discipline were eligible for review and inclusion in the study if the work was an original research article. The eligible articles were reviewed and classified by specialty and by funding source. The reported funding sources were categorized into federal, private foundation, local, discipline specific, corporate, and none. After all of the articles had been categorized, 40 articles from each discipline that had not reported any funding source were randomly selected. The primary author of each study was then contacted by telephone for a structured interview to verify the absence of reported funding in the published study. RESULTS: Eligible published articles used in this study numbered 319 in family medicine, 208 in general internal medicine, 522 in obstetrics and gynecology, and 888 in pediatrics. There was a statistical difference between the disciplines regarding the source of funding (chi 2 = 223.0, P less than .0001). Family medicine research was funded primarily by federal and discipline sources. Obstetrics and gynecology research was funded primarily by federal, private foundation, and corporate sources. General internal medicine research and pediatric research were funded primarily by federal and private foundation sources. The majority of the research articles in all four disciplines did not report any funding source. CONCLUSIONS: All four disciplines had diverse sources of funding with many similarities and relatively few differences. An important finding of the study was the amount of unfunded research conducted and published in these primary care disciplines.

Family Practice↗
PubMed1991

Expenditures and sources of funds for mental health organizations: United States and each state, 1988.

Expenditures. Expenditures by the 8 types of mental health organizations covered in this report totaled $23.1 billion in 1988 in the United States and territories. Three States (California, New York, and Pennsylvania) accounted for 30 percent of this total. Nationally, State and county mental hospitals (hereafter called State mental hospitals) accounted for the largest proportion of all expenditures (30 percent, down from 34 percent in 1986). Private psychiatric hospitals and multiservice mental health organizations had the next largest expenditures, each accounting for 20 percent of the total, followed by the separate psychiatric services of non-Federal general hospitals at 16 percent. Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) mental health services, residential treatment centers (RTCs) for emotionally disturbed children, freestanding psychiatric outpatient clinics, and freestanding psychiatric partial care organizations accounted for 6 percent, 6 percent, 3 percent, and less than one-half percent of total expenditures, respectively. State mental hospitals represented the largest expenditures of any single type of mental health organization in 23 States; expenditures of private psychiatric hospitals were largest in 12 States; and expenditures of multiservice mental health organizations were the largest in 10 States. The $23.1 billion total for 1988 represented a 25 percent increase over the 1986 figure but, when adjusted for inflation, the estimated increase (expressed in constant dollars) was only 10 percent overall and 8 percent on a per capita basis. Constant dollar expenditures of most types of mental health organizations increased between 1986 and 1988, with the largest increase occurring among private psychiatric hospitals (54 percent). In contrast, constant dollar expenditures decreased for State mental hospitals and VA mental health services. Sources of Funds In 1988, the funds received by mental health organizations totaled $23.4 billion. Of this total, $8.8 billion (38 percent) was provided directly by State governments, predominantly by State mental health agencies. Direct Federal funds, plus Medicare and Medicaid (including the State and local share of Medicaid), provided $6.5 billion (28 percent) of total funding. Fees from clients (including private insurance) provided $5.2 billion (22 percent); direct local government funds provided 7 percent; and all other sources, 5 percent. State governments provided 77 percent of the funds received by State mental hospitals and were also the largest single source of funds for multiservice mental health organizations (51 percent) and freestanding psychiatric partial care organizations (44 percent). VA mental health services were funded by the Federal government, while 62 percent of funding for private psychiatric hospitals came from client fees (including private insurance).(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 400 WORDS)

Community Mental Health Services↗
PubMed1975

Funding: grants or contracts? A survey of cancer scientists.

The members of the American Association for Cancer Research (AACR) were polled for their reactions to the current controversy of funding by research grant versus that by the research contract and to the nature of the scientific review appropriate for the evaluation of both types of applications. About 50% of the members responded; 97% of these felt that additional basic knowledge was absolutely essential or probably essential for the successful pursuit of the goals of the National Cancer Program. Eighty % of the respondents concluded that the funding of such research programs should be derived largely from grants rather than contracts. Most of the participants agreed that there should be a major rather than a minor redistribution of funds toward grants and away from contracts. About 50% of the respondent AACR members currently are being supported by research grants, about 10% receive contracts only, and another 25% of the members have both types of funds at their disposal. The group of contract-supported scientists felt less critical of contracts, but about one-half of that group also wished to see more funds going into the grant rather than into the contract programs for the additional support of basic research. There was considerable agreement among all groups of respondents that the review process for contracts should make much more active use of extramural peer evaluation to eliminate scientific inequities now existing between the two instruments for funding of work in cancer research.

Humans↗
PubMed1979

Funding impact of the National Cancer Act and beyond.

During the seven years following passage of the National Cancer Act of 1971, the appropriation for the National Cancer Institute (NCI) was increased by nearly $700 million. A major effect of the Act has been increased funding for grants-in-aid, which rose from $93 million in fiscal year (FY) 1970 to over $416 million in FY 1978. Grants programs account for over 60% of the total N. CI extramural research budget and are divided into four broad categories; research; training (including fellowships); cancer control; and construction. For the first 4 years following passage of the Act, funding for all grants programs increased dramatically. However, growth began to slow in 1976, and the deceleration is continuing. Total NCI obligations for FY 1978 increased at a rate of 7% (as opposed to an increase of 20.3% in FY 1975), which merely managed to keep pace with the estimated Biomedical Inflation Factor of 6.8%. Traditional grants have more than doubled in average cost over the past 10 years, a growth attributable to inflation, more sophisticated and expensive equipment and supplies, and, in some cases, more ambitious projects. The principal types of research grants include: traditional, investigator-initiated research; program projects, a team approach directed toward a common goal; and "core" support used to fund administrative and shared equipment costs of cancer centers. In FY 1977, the actual number of traditional grants awarded declined for the first time in 7 years, while the number of applications for both new and renewal grants increased at an unprecedented rate. Coincidentally, the number of traditional grants awarded this fiscal year increased by 4%, enabling the figure to exactly match that in 1978. While support for traditional grants has remained in the forefront of NCI funding, money for program projects and core support has increased at a greater rate in recent years. However, unlike the years immediately following the Act, emphasis is now being placed on core support (which increased by 9.4% in FY 1978) and program project grants (up 5.1%), as opposed to the exploratory grants necessary to initiate cancer centers. Funds allocated for construction in the wake of the Act are now being reduced, as the pace of development of new centers begins to slow. Although the number of grant awards has decreased, young investigators (35 years old or younger) continued to receiving a significant share of NCI funds, and, in fact, are faring better than older investigators in terms of recommendation, previously referred to as "approval," and award rates. Awards to foreign scientists increased steadily after the Act, achieving their greatest dollar increase ever in FY 1977; in FY 1978, however, they declined by more than 6%. As part of the NCI reorganization plan instituted by NCI Director Arthur C...

History, 20th Century↗
PubMed1979

Community mental health centers and the "seed money" concept: effects of terminating federal funds.

What happens to community mental health centers when federal funding ends? Analysis of the funding patterns of a cohort of "graduate" community mental health centers indicates that these centers remained fiscally viable subsequent to termination of basic federal grants. However, further analysis revealed two distinct funding patterns within the cohort. One group relied primarily on increased third-party reimbursements to offset the end of basic federal grants. The other sought more state funds and additional federal grants available through the Community Mental Health Center Amendments of 1975. As more centers "graduate," federal "floor funding" may be necessary to insure the survival of some of them.

Community Mental Health Centers↗
PubMed1979

Patient Compensation Funds: legislative responses to the medical malpractice crisis.

Fifteen states have created Patient Compensation Funds in response to the increased cost and reduced availability of medical malpractice insurance associated with the so-called "medical malpractice crisis." Patient Compensation Fund statutes limit health care providers' liability to a specified amount, and establish state-administered funds to compensate victorious malpractice plaintiffs for damage awards in excess of that amount. This Note examines the Patient Compensation Fund mechanism, evaluates its effectiveness as a compensation system for malpractice victims, and recommends particular provisions that might enhance its effectiveness. The Note concludes that the Patient Compensation Fund mechanism is an effective means of increasing the availability and of reducing the cost of medical malpractice insurance, and should be adopted by other states experiencing a "medical malpractice crisis."

Humans↗
PubMed1992

The 'anatomy' of research funding of mental illness and addictive disorders.

To assess the level and sources of research funding for mental illness and substance abuse fields, we undertook a systematic survey of public and private funding entities. Applying standard definitions, we found that research support in these fields totaled approximately $859 million in fiscal 1988. This level of research support for mental illness and substance abuse is extremely limited and disproportionate to the overall costs to society by these disorders. Mental disorders and substance abuse accounted for $66.8 billion in health care costs in 1988; in the same year, research on these disorders represented only 4.7% of all health research support nationwide. The three institutes of the Alcohol, Drug Abuse, and Mental Health Administration (ADAMHA) (namely, the National Institute of Mental Health [NIMH], the National Institute of Drug Abuse [NIDA], and the National Institute on Alcoholism and Alcohol Abuse [NIAAA]) support 64% of all mental illness and substance abuse research; other federal agencies add little more than 7.5%, with the Department of Veterans Affairs the largest at 2%. The pharmaceutical and hospital industries account for another 17% of all support; state funding is 8%, which is particularly surprising in light of the states responsibility for the chronically mentally ill. While there has been recent significant growth in the research budgets of the NIMH, the NIDA, and the NIAAA, other sectors have not grown commensurately, leaving the field vulnerable to the funding vicissitudes of these institutes. Greater coalition building and advocacy are necessary to expand the breadth and depth of research resources for the field.(ABSTRACT TRUNCATED AT 250 WORDS)

Behavior, Addictive↗