Mapping research activity on mental health disorders in Europe: study protocol for the Mapping_NCD project

Background: Mental health disorders (MHDs) constitute a large and growing disease burden in Europe, although they typically receive less attention and research funding than other non-communicable diseases (NCDs). This study protocol describes a methodology for the mapping of MHD research in Europe as part of Mapping_NCD, a 2-year project funded by the European Commission which seeks to map European research funding and impact for five NCDs in order to identify potential gaps, overlaps, synergies and opportunities, and to develop evidence-based policies for future research. Methods: The project aims to develop a multi-focal view of the MHD research landscape across the 28 European Union Member States, plus Iceland, Norway and Switzerland, through a survey of European funding entities, analysis of research initiatives undertaken in the public, voluntary/not-for-profit and commercial sectors, and expert interviews to contextualize the gathered data. The impact of MHD research will be explored using bibliometric analyses of scientific publications, clinical guidelines and newspaper stories reporting on research initiatives. Finally, these research inputs and outputs will be considered in light of various metrics that have been proposed to inform priorities for the allocation of research funds, including burden of disease, treatment gaps and cost of illness. Discussion: Given the growing burden of MHDs, a clear and broad view of the current state of MHD research is needed to ensure that limited resources are directed to evidence-based priority areas. MHDs pose a particular challenge in mapping the research landscape due to their complex nature, high co-morbidity and varying diagnostic criteria. Undertaking such an effort across 31 countries is further challenged by differences in data collection, healthcare systems, reimbursement rates and clinical practices, as well as cultural and socioeconomic diversity. Using multiple methods to explore the spectrum of MHD research funding activity across Europe, this project aims to develop a broad, high-level perspective to inform priority setting for future research

Sex and authorship in global cancer research

Introduction Research is an essential pillar of cancer control and key in shaping regional cancer control agendas. Imbalances in science and technology in terms of lack of female participation have been well documented. However, there is little evidence about country-level female participation in cancer research. Methodology Through a complex filter, cancer research papers were identified and grouped by countries and sex of the first and last authors of each paper and analysed by the percentage of females in these positions alongside other parameters. Results Our analysis of 56 countries’ outputs, in 2009, revealed that females were the first authors in 37.2% and last authors in 23.3% of papers. In 2019, females were the first author in 41.6% and last author in 29.4% of papers. Females increased as first authors by 26%, and as last authors by 12% between these two time periods. The top performing countries in terms female/male parity for first or last authorship were in Eastern and Southern Europe as well as Latin American countries.From 2009 to 2019, the highest proportion of females as first and last authors were from low-income and middle-income countries in Latin America and Eastern Europe.Females were more likely to publish in lower impact journals and were less likely to be cited compared to males. Conclusions Globally, progress in female’s authorship in oncology research has been uneven. More research is needed to understand the reasons behind this. Advancing diversity and equity in research leadership and authorship will be essential to address the complex challenges of cancer globally

Cancer research across Africa: a comparative bibliometric analysis

Introduction Research is a critical pillar in national cancer control planning. However, there is a dearth of evidence for countries to implement affordable strategies. The WHO and various Commissions have recommended developing stakeholder-based needs assessments based on objective data to generate evidence to inform national and regional prioritisation of cancer research needs and goals. Methodology Bibliometric algorithms (macros) were developed and validated to assess cancer research outputs of all 54 African countries over a 12-year period (2009–2020). Subanalysis included collaboration patterns, site and domain-specific focus of research and understanding authorship dynamics by both position and sex. Detailed subanalysis was performed to understand multiple impact metrics and context relative outputs in comparison with the disease burden as well as the application of a funding thesaurus to determine funding resources. Results African countries in total published 23 679 cancer research papers over the 12-year period (2009–2020) with the fractional African contribution totalling 16 201 papers and the remaining 7478 from authors from out with the continent. The total number of papers increased rapidly with time, with an annual growth rate of 15%. The 49 sub-Saharan African (SSA) countries together published just 5281 papers, of which South Africa’s contribution was 2206 (42% of the SSA total, 14% of all Africa) and Nigeria’s contribution was 997 (19% of the SSA total, 4% of all Africa). Cancer research accounted for 7.9% of all African biomedical research outputs (African research in infectious diseases was 5.1 times than that of cancer research). Research outputs that are proportionally low relative to their burden across Africa are paediatric, cervical, oesophageal and prostate cancer. African research mirrored that of Western countries in terms of its focus on discovery science and pharmaceutical research. The percentages of female researchers in Africa were comparable with those elsewhere, but only in North African and some Anglophone countries. Conclusions There is an imbalance in relevant local research generation on the continent and cancer control efforts. The recommendations articulated in our five-point plan arising from these data are broadly focused on structural changes, for example, overt inclusion of research into national cancer control planning and financial, for example, for countries to spend 10% of a notional 1% gross domestic expenditure on research and development on cancer

Lung cancer research and its citation on clinical practice guidelines.

BACKGROUND: The impact of medical research is usually judged on the basis of citations in the serial literature. A better test of its utility is through its contribution to clinical practice guidelines (CPGs) on how to prevent, diagnose, and treat illness. This study aimed to compare the parameters of lung cancer research papers with those cited as references in lung cancer CPGs from 16 countries, and the Cochrane Collaboration. These comparisons were mainly based on bibliographic data compiled from the Web of Science (WoS). METHODOLOGY: We examined 7357 references (of which 4491 were unique) cited in a total of 77 lung cancer CPGs, and compared them with 73,214 lung cancer papers published in the WoS between 2004 and 2018. RESULTS: References used by lung CPGs were much more clinical than the overall body of research papers on this cancer, and their authors predominantly came from smaller northern European countries. However, the leading institutions whose papers were cited the most on these CPGs were from the USA, notably the MD Anderson Cancer Center in Texas, the Memorial Sloan Kettering Cancer Center, New York, and the Mayo Clinic in Rochester, Minnesota. The types of research cited by the CPGs were primarily clinical trials, as well as three treatment modalities (chemotherapy, radiotherapy and surgery). Genetics, palliative care and quality of life were largely neglected. The median time gap between papers cited on a lung CPG and its publication was 3.5 years longer than for WoS citations. CONCLUSIONS: Analysis of the references on CPGs allows an alternative means of research evaluation, and one that may be more appropriate for clinical research than citations in academic journals. Own-country references show the direct contribution of research to a country's health care, and other-country references show the esteem in which this research has been held internationally

Is Medical Research Informing Professional Practice More Highly Cited? Evidence from AHFS DI Essentials in Drugs.com

This is an accepted manuscript of an article published by Springer in Scientometrics on 21/02/2017, available online: https://doi.org/10.1007/s11192-017-2292-3 The accepted version of the publication may differ from the final published version.Citation-based indicators are often used to help evaluate the impact of published medical studies, even though the research has the ultimate goal of improving human wellbeing. One direct way of influencing health outcomes is by guiding physicians and other medical professionals about which drugs to prescribe. A high profile source of this guidance is the AHFS DI Essentials product of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists, which gives systematic information for drug prescribers. AHFS DI Essentials documents, which are also indexed by Drugs.com, include references to academic studies and the referenced work is therefore helping patients by guiding drug prescribing. This article extracts AHFS DI Essentials documents from Drugs.com and assesses whether articles referenced in these information sheets have their value recognised by higher Scopus citation counts. A comparison of mean log-transformed citation counts between articles that are and are not referenced in AHFS DI Essentials shows that AHFS DI Essentials references are more highly cited than average for the publishing journal. This suggests that medical research influencing drug prescribing is more cited than average

The Profile of Non-Communicable Disease (NCD) research in the Middle East and North Africa (MENA) region: Analyzing the NCD burden, research outputs and international research collaboration.

OBJECTIVES: Despite the rising risk factor exposure and non-communicable disease (NCD) mortality across the Middle East and the North African (MENA) region, public health policy responses have been slow and appear discordant with the social, economic and political circumstances in each country. Good health policy and outcomes are intimately linked to a research-active culture, particularly in NCD. In this study we present the results of a comprehensive analysis of NCD research with particular a focus on cancer, diabetes and cardiovascular disease in 10 key countries that represent a spectrum across MENA between 1991 and 2018. METHODS: The study uses a well validated bibliometric approach to undertake a quantitative analysis of research output in the ten leading countries in biomedical research in the MENA region on the basis of articles and reviews in the Web of Science database. We used filters for each of the three NCDs and biomedical research to identify relevant papers in the WoS. The countries selected for the analyses were based on the volume of research outputs during the period of analysis and stability, included Egypt, Iran, Jordan, Kuwait, Lebanon, Oman, Qatar, Saudi Arabia, Turkey and the United Arab Emirates. RESULTS: A total of 495,108 biomedical papers were found in 12,341 journals for the ten MENA countries (here we consider Turkey in the context of MENA). For all three NCDs, Turkey's output is consistently the highest. Iran has had considerable growth in research output to occupy second place across all three NCDs. It appears that, relative to their wealth (measured by GDP), some MENA countries, particularly Oman, Qatar, Kuwait and the United Arab Emirates, are substantially under-investing in biomedical research. In terms of investment on particular NCDs, we note the relatively greater commitment on cancer research compared with diabetes or cardiovascular disease in most MENA countries, despite cardiovascular disease causing the greatest health-related burden. When considering the citation impact of research outputs, there have been marked rises in citation scores in Qatar, Lebanon, United Arab Emirates and Oman. However, Turkey, which has the largest biomedical research output in the Middle East has the lowest citation scores overall. The level of intra-regional collaboration in NCD research is highly variable. Saudi Arabia and Egypt are the dominant research collaborators across the MENA region. However, Turkey and Iran, which are amongst the leading research-active countries in the area, show little evidence of collaboration. With respect to international collaboration, the United States and United Kingdom are the dominant research partners across the region followed by Germany and France. CONCLUSION: The increase in research activity in NCDs across the MENA region countries during the time period of analysis may signal both an increasing focus on NCDs which reflects general global trends, and greater investment in research in some countries. However, there are several risks to the sustainability of these improvements that have been identified in particular countries within the region. For example, a lack of suitably trained researchers, low political commitment and poor financial support, and minimal international collaboration which is essential for wider global impact

Tracing the wider impacts of biomedical research: A literature search to develop a novel citation categorisation technique

There is an increasing need both to understand the translation of biomedical research into improved healthcare and to assess the range of wider impacts from health research such as improved health policies, health practices and healthcare. Conducting such assessments is complex and new methods are being sought. Our new approach involves several steps. First, we developed a qualitative citation analysis technique to apply to biomedical research in order to assess the contribution that individual papers made to further research. Second, using this method, we then proposed to trace the citations to the original research through a series of generations of citing papers. Third, we aimed eventually to assess the wider impacts of the various generations. This article describes our comprehensive literature search to inform the new technique. We searched various databases, specific bibliometrics journals and the bibliographies of key papers. After excluding irrelevant papers we reviewed those remaining for either general or specific details that could inform development of our new technique. Various characteristics of citations were identified that had been found to predict their importance to the citing paper including the citation’s location; number of citation occasions and whether the author(s) of the cited paper were named within the citing paper. We combined these objective characteristics with subjective approaches also identified from the literature search to develop a citation categorisation technique that would allow us to achieve the first of the steps above, i.e., being able routinely to assess the contribution that individual papers make to further research.Medical Research Council as part of the MRC-NIHR Methodology Research Programme, and Professor Martin Buxton