Differences in research funding for women scientists: a systematic comparison of UK investments in global infectious disease research during 1997–2010

Objectives: There has not previously been a systematic comparison of awards for research funding in infectious diseases by sex. We investigated funding awards to UK institutions for all infectious disease research from 1997 to 2010, across disease categories and along the research and development continuum. Design: Systematic comparison. Methods: Data were obtained from several sources for awards from the period 1997 to 2010 and each study assigned to—disease categories; type of science (preclinical, phases I–III trials, product development, implementation research); categories of funding organisation. Fold differences and statistical analysis were used to compare total investment, study numbers, mean grant and median grant between men and women. Results: 6052 studies were included in the final analysis, comprising 4357 grants (72%) awarded to men and 1695 grants (28%) awarded to women, totalling £2.274 billion. Of this, men received £1.786 billion (78.5%) and women £488 million (21.5%). The median value of award was greater for men (£179 389; IQR £59 146–£371 977) than women (£125 556; IQR £30 982–£261 834). Awards were greater for male principal investigators (PIs) across all infectious disease systems, excepting neurological infections and sexually transmitted infections. The proportion of total funding awarded to women ranged from 14.3% in 1998 to 26.8% in 2009 (mean 21.4%), and was lowest for preclinical research at 18.2% (£285.5 million of £1.573 billion) and highest for operational research at 30.9% (£151.4 million of £489.7 million). Conclusions: There are consistent differences in funding received by men and women PIs: women have fewer funded studies and receive less funding in absolute and in relative terms; the median funding awarded to women is lower across most infectious disease areas, by funder, and type of science. These differences remain broadly unchanged over the 14-year study period

Funding Infectious Disease Research: A Systematic Analysis of UK Research Investments by Funders 1997–2010

Background: Research investments are essential to address the burden of disease, however allocation of limited resources is poorly documented. We systematically reviewed the investments awarded by funding organisations to UK institutions and their global partners for infectious disease research. Methodology/Principal Findings Public and philanthropic investments for the period 1997 to 2010 were included. We categorised studies by infectious disease, cross-cutting theme, and by research and development value chain, reflecting the type of science. We identified 6165 funded studies, with a total research investment of UK £2.6 billion. Public organisations provided £1.4 billion (54.0%) of investments compared with £1.1 billion (42.4%) by philanthropic organisations. Global health studies represented an investment of £928 million (35.7%). The Wellcome Trust was the leading investor with £688 million (26.5%), closely followed by the UK Medical Research Council (MRC) with £673 million (25.9%). Funding over time was volatile, ranging from ∼£40 million to ∼£160 million per year for philanthropic organisations and ∼£30 million to ∼£230 million for public funders. Conclusions/Significance: Infectious disease research funding requires global coordination and strategic long-term vision. Our analysis demonstrates the diversity and inconsistent patterns in investment, with volatility in annual funding amounts and limited investment for product development and clinical trials

Investments in respiratory infectious disease research 1997–2010: a systematic analysis of UK funding

Objectives: Respiratory infections are responsible for a large global burden of disease. We assessed the public and philanthropic investments awarded to UK institutions for respiratory infectious disease research to identify areas of underinvestment. We aimed to identify projects and categorise them by pathogen, disease and position along the research and development value chain. Setting: The UK. Participants: Institutions that host and carry out infectious disease research. Primary and secondary outcome measures The total amount spent and number of studies with a focus on several different respiratory pathogens or diseases, and to correlate these against the global burden of disease; also the total amount spent and number of studies relating to the type of science, the predominant funder in each category and the mean and median award size. Results: We identified 6165 infectious disease studies with a total investment of £2·6 billion. Respiratory research received £419 million (16.1%) across 1192 (19.3%) studies. The Wellcome Trust provided greatest investment (£135.2 million; 32.3%). Tuberculosis received £155 million (37.1%), influenza £80 million (19.1%) and pneumonia £27.8 million (6.6%). Despite high burden, there was relatively little investment in vaccine-preventable diseases including diphtheria (£0.1 million, 0.03%), measles (£5.0 million, 1.2%) and drug-resistant tuberculosis. There were 802 preclinical studies (67.3%) receiving £273 million (65.2%), while implementation research received £81 million (19.3%) across 274 studies (23%). There were comparatively few phase I–IV trials or product development studies. Global health research received £68.3 million (16.3%). Relative investment was strongly correlated with 2010 disease burden. Conclusions: The UK predominantly funds preclinical science. Tuberculosis is the most studied respiratory disease. The high global burden of pneumonia-related disease warrants greater investment than it has historically received. Other priority areas include antimicrobial resistance (particularly within tuberculosis), economics and proactive investments for emerging infectious threats

Systematic analysis of funding awarded for antimicrobial resistance research to institutions in the UK, 1997–2010

Objectives: To assess the level of research funding awarded to UK institutions specifically for antimicrobial resistance-related research and how closely the topics funded relate to the clinical and public health burden of resistance. Methods: Databases and web sites were systematically searched for information on how infectious disease research studies were funded for the period 1997–2010. Studies specifically related to antimicrobial resistance, including bacteriology, virology, mycology and parasitology research, were identified and categorized in terms of funding by pathogen and disease and by a research and development value chain describing the type of science. Results: The overall dataset included 6165 studies receiving a total investment of £2.6 billion, of which £102 million was directed towards antimicrobial resistance research (5.5% of total studies, 3.9% of total spend). Of 337 resistance-related projects, 175 studies focused on bacteriology (40.2% of total resistance-related spending), 42 focused on antiviral resistance (17.2% of funding) and 51 focused on parasitology (27.4% of funding). Mean annual funding ranged from £1.9 million in 1997 to £22.1 million in 2009. Conclusions: Despite the fact that the emergence of antimicrobial resistance threatens our future ability to treat many infections, the proportion of the UK infection-research spend targeting this important area is small. There are encouraging signs of increased investment in this area, but it is important that this is sustained and targeted at areas of projected greatest burden. Two areas of particular concern requiring more investment are tuberculosis and multidrug-resistant Gram-negative bacteria

Outcomes of specialist discharge coordination and intermediate care schemes for patients who are homeless: analysis protocol for a population-based historical cohort

Introduction People who are homeless often experience poor hospital discharge arrangements, reflecting ongoing care and housing needs. Specialist integrated homeless health and care provision (SIHHC) schemes have been developed and implemented to facilitate the safe and timely discharge of homeless patients from hospital. Our study aims to investigate the health outcomes of patients who were homeless and seen by a selection of SIHHC services. Methods and analysis Our study will employ a historical population-based cohort in England. We will examine health outcomes among three groups of adults: (1) homeless patients seen by specialist discharge schemes during their hospital admission; (2) homeless patients not seen by a specialist scheme and (3)admitted patients who live in deprived neighbourhoods and were not recorded as being homeless. Primary outcomes will be: time from discharge to next hospital inpatient admission; time from discharge to next accident and emergency attendance and 28-day emergency readmission. Outcome data will be generated through linkage to hospital admissions data (Hospital Episode Statistics) and mortality data for November 2013 to November 2016. Multivariable regression will be used to model the relationship between the study comparison groups and each of the outcomes. Ethics and dissemination Approval has been obtained from the National Health Service (NHS) Confidentiality Advisory Group (reference 16/CAG/0021) to undertake this work using unconsented identifiable data. Health Research Authority Research Ethics approval (REC 16/EE/0018) has been obtained in addition to local research and development approvals for data collection at NHS sites. We will feedback the results of our study to our advisory group of people who have lived experience of homelessness and seek their suggestions on ways to improve or take this work further for their benefit. We will disseminate our findings to SIHHC schemes through a series of regional workshops

Comparing research investment to United Kingdom institutions and published outputs for tuberculosis, HIV and malaria: A systematic analysis across 1997-2013

Background: The "Unfinished Agenda" of infectious diseases is of great importance to policymakers and research funding agencies that require ongoing research evidence on their effective management. Journal publications help effectively share and disseminate research results to inform policy and practice. We assess research investments to United Kingdom institutions in HIV, tuberculosis and malaria, and analyse these by numbers of publications and citations and by disease and type of science. Methods: Information on infection-related research investments awarded to United Kingdom institutions across 1997-2010 were sourced from funding agencies and individually categorised by disease and type of science. Publications were sourced from the Scopus database via keyword searches and filtered to include only publications relating to human disease and containing a United Kingdom-based first and/or last author. Data were matched by disease and type of science categories. Investment (United Kingdom pounds) and publications were compared to generate an 'investment per publication' metric; similarly, an 'investment per citation' metric was also developed as a measure of the usefulness of research. Results: Total research investment for all three diseases was £1.4 billion, and was greatest for HIV (£651.4 million), followed by malaria (£518.7 million) and tuberculosis (£239.1 million). There were 17,271 included publications, with 9,322 for HIV, 4,451 for malaria, and 3,498 for tuberculosis. HIV publications received the most citations (254,949), followed by malaria (148,559) and tuberculosis (100,244). According to UK pound per publication, tuberculosis (£50,691) appeared the most productive for investment, compared to HIV (£61,971) and malaria (£94,483). By type of science, public health research was most productive for HIV (£27,296) and tuberculosis (£22,273), while phase I-III trials were most productive for malaria (£60,491). According to UK pound per citation, tuberculosis (£1,797) was the most productive area for investment, compared to HIV (£2,265) and malaria (£2,834). Public health research was the most productive type of science for HIV (£2,265) and tuberculosis (£1,797), whereas phase I-III trials were most productive for malaria (£1,713). Conclusions: When comparing total publications and citations with research investment to United Kingdom institutions, tuberculosis research appears to perform best in terms of efficiency. There were more public health-related publications and citations for HIV and tuberculosis than other types of science. These findings demonstrate the diversity of research funding and outputs, and provide new evidence to inform research investment strategies for policymakers, funders, academic institutions, and healthcare organizations.Infectious Disease Research Networ

Cohort Profile: The Flu Watch Study

Influenza is a common, highly contagious respiratory virus which infects all age groups, causing a range of outcomes from asymptomatic infection and mild respiratory disease to severe respiratory disease and death.1 If infected, the adaptive immune system produces a humoral (antibody) and cell-mediated (T cell) immune response to fight the infection.2 Influenza viruses continually evolve through antigenic drift, resulting in slightly different ‘seasonal’ influenza strains circulating each year. Population-level antibody immunity to these seasonal viruses builds up over time, so in any given season only a proportion of the population is susceptible to the circulating strains. Occasionally, influenza A viruses evolve rapidly through antigenic shift by swapping genes with influenza viruses usually circulating in animals. This process creates an immunologically distinct virus to which the population may have little to no antibody immunity. The virus can result in a pandemic if a large portion of the population is susceptible and the virus is easily spread

Comparative community burden and severity of seasonal and pandemic influenza: results of the Flu Watch cohort study

BACKGROUND: Assessment of the effect of influenza on populations, including risk of infection, illness if infected, illness severity, and consultation rates, is essential to inform future control and prevention. We aimed to compare the community burden and severity of seasonal and pandemic influenza across different age groups and study years and gain insight into the extent to which traditional surveillance underestimates this burden. METHODS: Using preseason and postseason serology, weekly illness reporting, and RT-PCR identification of influenza from nasal swabs, we tracked the course of seasonal and pandemic influenza over five successive cohorts (England 2006-11; 5448 person-seasons' follow-up). We compared burden and severity of seasonal and pandemic strains. We weighted analyses to the age and regional structure of England to give nationally representative estimates. We compared symptom profiles over the first week of illness for different strains of PCR-confirmed influenza and non-influenza viruses using ordinal logistic regression with symptom severity grade as the outcome variable. FINDINGS: Based on four-fold titre rises in strain-specific serology, on average influenza infected 18% (95% CI 16-22) of unvaccinated people each winter. Of those infected there were 69 respiratory illnesses per 100 person-influenza-seasons compared with 44 per 100 in those not infected with influenza. The age-adjusted attributable rate of illness if infected was 23 illnesses per 100 person-seasons (13-34), suggesting most influenza infections are asymptomatic. 25% (18-35) of all people with serologically confirmed infections had PCR-confirmed disease. 17% (10-26) of people with PCR-confirmed influenza had medically attended illness. These figures did not differ significantly when comparing pandemic with seasonal influenza. Of PCR-confirmed cases, people infected with the 2009 pandemic strain had markedly less severe symptoms than those infected with seasonal H3N2. INTERPRETATION: Seasonal influenza and the 2009 pandemic strain were characterised by similar high rates of mainly asymptomatic infection with most symptomatic cases self-managing without medical consultation. In the community the 2009 pandemic strain caused milder symptoms than seasonal H3N2

The evolving SARS-CoV-2 epidemic in Africa: Insights from rapidly expanding genomic surveillance

INTRODUCTION Investment in Africa over the past year with regard to severe acute respiratory syndrome coronavirus 2 (SARS-CoV-2) sequencing has led to a massive increase in the number of sequences, which, to date, exceeds 100,000 sequences generated to track the pandemic on the continent. These sequences have profoundly affected how public health officials in Africa have navigated the COVID-19 pandemic. RATIONALE We demonstrate how the first 100,000 SARS-CoV-2 sequences from Africa have helped monitor the epidemic on the continent, how genomic surveillance expanded over the course of the pandemic, and how we adapted our sequencing methods to deal with an evolving virus. Finally, we also examine how viral lineages have spread across the continent in a phylogeographic framework to gain insights into the underlying temporal and spatial transmission dynamics for several variants of concern (VOCs). RESULTS Our results indicate that the number of countries in Africa that can sequence the virus within their own borders is growing and that this is coupled with a shorter turnaround time from the time of sampling to sequence submission. Ongoing evolution necessitated the continual updating of primer sets, and, as a result, eight primer sets were designed in tandem with viral evolution and used to ensure effective sequencing of the virus. The pandemic unfolded through multiple waves of infection that were each driven by distinct genetic lineages, with B.1-like ancestral strains associated with the first pandemic wave of infections in 2020. Successive waves on the continent were fueled by different VOCs, with Alpha and Beta cocirculating in distinct spatial patterns during the second wave and Delta and Omicron affecting the whole continent during the third and fourth waves, respectively. Phylogeographic reconstruction points toward distinct differences in viral importation and exportation patterns associated with the Alpha, Beta, Delta, and Omicron variants and subvariants, when considering both Africa versus the rest of the world and viral dissemination within the continent. Our epidemiological and phylogenetic inferences therefore underscore the heterogeneous nature of the pandemic on the continent and highlight key insights and challenges, for instance, recognizing the limitations of low testing proportions. We also highlight the early warning capacity that genomic surveillance in Africa has had for the rest of the world with the detection of new lineages and variants, the most recent being the characterization of various Omicron subvariants. CONCLUSION Sustained investment for diagnostics and genomic surveillance in Africa is needed as the virus continues to evolve. This is important not only to help combat SARS-CoV-2 on the continent but also because it can be used as a platform to help address the many emerging and reemerging infectious disease threats in Africa. In particular, capacity building for local sequencing within countries or within the continent should be prioritized because this is generally associated with shorter turnaround times, providing the most benefit to local public health authorities tasked with pandemic response and mitigation and allowing for the fastest reaction to localized outbreaks. These investments are crucial for pandemic preparedness and response and will serve the health of the continent well into the 21st century