The Experts below are selected from a list of 2154072 Experts worldwide ranked by ideXlab platform
Mark I. Mccarthy - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
National action for European public Health Research.
The European Journal of Public Health, 2013Co-Authors: Mark I. Mccarthy, Dineke Zeegers Paget, Floris BarnhoornAbstract:Introduction: Research and innovation are the basis for improving Health and Health services. The European Union (EU) supports Research through multi-annual programmes. Public Health Innovation and Research in Europe (PHIRE) investigated how European countries cooperate for action in public Health Research. Methods: In PHIRE, following stakeholder workshops and consultations, a national report on public Health Research was created for 24 of 30 European countries. The report template asked five questions, on national links to European public Health Research and on national Research through the Structural Funds and Ministry of Health. The national reports were assessed with framework analysis, and the country actions were classified strong/partial/weak or none. There were responses to the five questions sufficient for this analysis for between 14 and 20 countries Results: Six countries had public Health Research aligned with the EU, while three (large) countries were reported not aligned. Only two countries expressed strong engagement in developing public Health Research within Horizon 2020: most Ministries of Health had no position and only had contact with EU Health Research through other ministries. Only two countries reported use of the 2007–13 Structural Funds for public Health Research. While seven Ministries of Health led Research from their own funds, or linked with Ministries of Science in six, the Ministries of Health of seven countries were reported not to be involved in public Health Research. Conclusions : Ministries of Health and stakeholders are poorly engaged in developing public Health Research, with the Horizon 2020 Research programme, or the Structural Funds. The European Commission should give more attention to coordination of public Health Research with member states if it is to give best value to European citizens.
-
Strategies for public Health Research in European Union countries
The European Journal of Public Health, 2013Co-Authors: Olivier Grimaud, Mark I. Mccarthy, Cláudia ConceiçãoAbstract:Introduction: 'Health' is an identifiable theme within the European Union multi-annual Research programmes. Public Health Innovation and Research in Europe (PHIRE), led by the European Public Health Association, sought to identify public Health Research strategies in EU member states. Methods: Within PHIRE, national public Health associations reviewed structures for Health Research, held stakeholder workshops and produced reports. This in- formation, supplemented by further web searches, including using assisted translation, was analysed for national Research strategies and Health Research strategies. Results: All countries described general Research strategies, outlining organizational and capacity objectives. Thematic fields, including Health, are mentioned in some strategies. A Health Research strategy was identified for 15 EU countries and not for 12. Ministries of Health led Research strategies for nine countries. Public Health Research was identified in only three strategies. National Research strategies did not refer to the European Union's Health Research programme. Conclusions: Public Health Research strategies of European countries need to be developed by ministries of Health, working with the Research community to achieve the European Research Area.
-
Public Health Research systems in the European union
Health research policy and systems, 2011Co-Authors: Cláudia Conceição, Mark I. MccarthyAbstract:Strengthening Health Research is an important objective for international Health organisations, but there has been less attention to support for Health Research in Europe. We describe the public-Health (population and organisational level) Research systems in the 27 European Union countries. We developed a typology for describing Health Research structures based on funding streams and strategies. We drew data from internet sources and asked country informants to review these for consistency and completeness. The structures were described as organograms and narratives in country profiles for each of the 27 EU member states. National public-Health Research structures included public and independent funding organisations, 'mixed' institutions (which receive funds, and both use and allocate them) and provider institutions. Most Health Research is funded through ministries of science or science councils (and sometimes foundations), while parliaments and regions may also contribute. National institutes of public Health are usually funded by ministries of Health. Many national Research organisations both determine Research programmes and undertake Health Research, but there is a move towards public-Health sciences within the universities, and a transition from internal grants to competitive funding. Of 27 national Research strategies, 17 referred to Health and 11 to public Health themes. Although all countries had strategies for public Health itself, we found little coherence in public-Health Research programmes. The European Commission has country contact points for both EU Research and Health programmes, but they do not coordinate with national Health-Research programmes. Public-Health Research is broadly distributed across programmes in EU countries. Better understanding of Research structures, programmes and results would improve recognition for public Health in Europe, and contribute to practice. EU ministries of Health should give greater attention to national public-Health Research strategies and programmes, and the European Union and the World Health Organisation can provide coordination and support.
-
Who supports Health Research in Europe
European journal of public health, 2010Co-Authors: Mark I. MccarthyAbstract:‘If you think Research is expensive, try disease’.1 Mary Lasker (USA, 1901–94) What is public-Health Research? Health relates to three sets of sciences—‘life’ sciences joining biological and human laboratory Research, clinical sciences investigating and treating disease, and public-Health sciences achieving disease control through prevention and Health services organization. The Global Forum for Health Research takes ‘Health’ Research to include all areas of biomedical and public-Health Research, while the Alliance for Health Policy and Systems Research focuses on the planning, management and finance of Health services. But these organizations are concerned with global Health Research, not Research in Europe. In this Viewpoint, public-Health Research in Europe is taken to include Health Research at organizational and population level—including some medical, social and environmental disciplines, but excluding clinical and laboratory Research.2 SPHERE (Strengthening Public Health Research in Europe), a collaborative study through the European Public Health Association funded by the European Commission’s Sixth Framework Research Programme, showed2 that the level of public-Health publications in Europe is below the USA, and that there is insufficient development of social, behavioural and organizational Health Research particularly in the new member states. There are marked disparities between countries in publication rates, with strongest output in the Scandinavian countries. It is difficult to identify leadership of national-level public-Health Research, and there is no standard description of funding.3 European national Health systems use most of their resources for disease treatment and care, rather than disease control or prevention. Public-Health action is often less visible, except in moments of publicity, such as the recent flu panic—and even for flu the ‘big ticket’ has been spending on commercial vaccines and treatments. The public system confirms a priority for treatment over prevention, and the profit-making sector over the not-for-profit. Few Health economists work on public-Health Research. Health Research …
-
Public Health Research - multidisciplinary, high-benefit, undervalued
Innovation: The European Journal of Social Science Research, 2010Co-Authors: Mark I. MccarthyAbstract:The major Health problems faced by policy-makers and practitioners at national and local levels require public Health approaches. However, public Health Research is the “poor relative” of biomedical Research: it is worthy, but not rich. In the European Commission's Health Research programme, biomedicine gets 90% of the funding, whereas public Health Research gets less than 10%. This pattern is repeated nationally in most countries, reflecting public policies to support industries – pharmaceuticals, biotechnology, medical devices – where profits are to be made, rather than not-for-profit, public Health Research. SPHERE, a study coordinated through the European Public Health Association, conducted bibliometric analyses across public Health Research themes and mapped the European and national structures and priorities for Research. Whilst most European countries have national strategies (and some programmes) for public Health, few have public Health Research strategies and the coordination of public Health r...
Floris Barnhoorn - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Programmes and calls for public Health Research in European countries
European Journal of Public Health, 2013Co-Authors: Cláudia Conceição, Mark Mccarthy, Floris Barnhoorn, Olivier Grimaud, Marvic Sammut, Amanda Saliba, Zuzana Katreniakova, Laura NarkauskaitéAbstract:INTRODUCTION: Public Health Research, at population and organizational level, needs to be identified independently within 'Health' Research from biomedicine and life sciences. In PHIRE (Public Health Innovation and Research in Europe), we investigated the extent and character of public Health Research calls and programmes in European countries. METHODS: Country respondents, identified through national member associations of the European Public Health Association completed a standardized recording instrument. Public Health Research was defined, and the call period limited to the latest full year (2010). Of the 30 countries included (EU 27 plus Iceland, Norway and Switzerland), there were reports for 25 countries A simple classification of the calls was developed. RESULTS: There were 75 calls and programmes included. Of these, 41 (55%) together were in France and the UK, and 34 in a further 14 countries, while 9 countries reported there were no calls or programmes opened in 2010. Calls were categorized across diseases, behaviours, determinants, services and methodologies. Some calls were broad, while others--particularly in the countries with several calls--were more detailed towards specific issues. Levels of funding varied markedly and were difficult to define. Where stated, in 32 responses, 19 calls were only open to national applicants and 13 from abroad. CONCLUSIONS: Most European countries have competitive programmes and calls relevant for public Health Research, but they are poorly identified. Only a minority of countries present a wide range of topics and specific fields. Effort is needed to develop classifications for public Health programmes and calls for public Health Research, improve information (including financial) collection to enable systematic comparisons and build greater recognition of public Health Research within Research communities, with national and European Research funding organizations, and for practitioners and policymakers.
-
National action for European public Health Research.
The European Journal of Public Health, 2013Co-Authors: Mark I. Mccarthy, Dineke Zeegers Paget, Floris BarnhoornAbstract:Introduction: Research and innovation are the basis for improving Health and Health services. The European Union (EU) supports Research through multi-annual programmes. Public Health Innovation and Research in Europe (PHIRE) investigated how European countries cooperate for action in public Health Research. Methods: In PHIRE, following stakeholder workshops and consultations, a national report on public Health Research was created for 24 of 30 European countries. The report template asked five questions, on national links to European public Health Research and on national Research through the Structural Funds and Ministry of Health. The national reports were assessed with framework analysis, and the country actions were classified strong/partial/weak or none. There were responses to the five questions sufficient for this analysis for between 14 and 20 countries Results: Six countries had public Health Research aligned with the EU, while three (large) countries were reported not aligned. Only two countries expressed strong engagement in developing public Health Research within Horizon 2020: most Ministries of Health had no position and only had contact with EU Health Research through other ministries. Only two countries reported use of the 2007–13 Structural Funds for public Health Research. While seven Ministries of Health led Research from their own funds, or linked with Ministries of Science in six, the Ministries of Health of seven countries were reported not to be involved in public Health Research. Conclusions : Ministries of Health and stakeholders are poorly engaged in developing public Health Research, with the Horizon 2020 Research programme, or the Structural Funds. The European Commission should give more attention to coordination of public Health Research with member states if it is to give best value to European citizens.
-
National action for European public Health Research.
European journal of public health, 2013Co-Authors: Mark Mccarthy, Dineke Zeegers Paget, Floris BarnhoornAbstract:Research and innovation are the basis for improving Health and Health services. The European Union (EU) supports Research through multi-annual programmes. Public Health Innovation and Research in Europe (PHIRE) investigated how European countries cooperate for action in public Health Research. In PHIRE, following stakeholder workshops and consultations, a national report on public Health Research was created for 24 of 30 European countries. The report template asked five questions, on national links to European public Health Research and on national Research through the Structural Funds and Ministry of Health. The national reports were assessed with framework analysis, and the country actions were classified strong/partial/weak or none. There were responses to the five questions sufficient for this analysis for between 14 and 20 countries Six countries had public Health Research aligned with the EU, while three (large) countries were reported not aligned. Only two countries expressed strong engagement in developing public Health Research within Horizon 2020: most Ministries of Health had no position and only had contact with EU Health Research through other ministries. Only two countries reported use of the 2007-13 Structural Funds for public Health Research. While seven Ministries of Health led Research from their own funds, or linked with Ministries of Science in six, the Ministries of Health of seven countries were reported not to be involved in public Health Research. Ministries of Health and stakeholders are poorly engaged in developing public Health Research, with the Horizon 2020 Research programme, or the Structural Funds. The European Commission should give more attention to coordination of public Health Research with member states if it is to give best value to European citizens.
Cláudia Conceição - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Programmes and calls for public Health Research in European countries
European Journal of Public Health, 2013Co-Authors: Cláudia Conceição, Mark Mccarthy, Floris Barnhoorn, Olivier Grimaud, Marvic Sammut, Amanda Saliba, Zuzana Katreniakova, Laura NarkauskaitéAbstract:INTRODUCTION: Public Health Research, at population and organizational level, needs to be identified independently within 'Health' Research from biomedicine and life sciences. In PHIRE (Public Health Innovation and Research in Europe), we investigated the extent and character of public Health Research calls and programmes in European countries. METHODS: Country respondents, identified through national member associations of the European Public Health Association completed a standardized recording instrument. Public Health Research was defined, and the call period limited to the latest full year (2010). Of the 30 countries included (EU 27 plus Iceland, Norway and Switzerland), there were reports for 25 countries A simple classification of the calls was developed. RESULTS: There were 75 calls and programmes included. Of these, 41 (55%) together were in France and the UK, and 34 in a further 14 countries, while 9 countries reported there were no calls or programmes opened in 2010. Calls were categorized across diseases, behaviours, determinants, services and methodologies. Some calls were broad, while others--particularly in the countries with several calls--were more detailed towards specific issues. Levels of funding varied markedly and were difficult to define. Where stated, in 32 responses, 19 calls were only open to national applicants and 13 from abroad. CONCLUSIONS: Most European countries have competitive programmes and calls relevant for public Health Research, but they are poorly identified. Only a minority of countries present a wide range of topics and specific fields. Effort is needed to develop classifications for public Health programmes and calls for public Health Research, improve information (including financial) collection to enable systematic comparisons and build greater recognition of public Health Research within Research communities, with national and European Research funding organizations, and for practitioners and policymakers.
-
Strategies for public Health Research in European Union countries
The European Journal of Public Health, 2013Co-Authors: Olivier Grimaud, Mark I. Mccarthy, Cláudia ConceiçãoAbstract:Introduction: 'Health' is an identifiable theme within the European Union multi-annual Research programmes. Public Health Innovation and Research in Europe (PHIRE), led by the European Public Health Association, sought to identify public Health Research strategies in EU member states. Methods: Within PHIRE, national public Health associations reviewed structures for Health Research, held stakeholder workshops and produced reports. This in- formation, supplemented by further web searches, including using assisted translation, was analysed for national Research strategies and Health Research strategies. Results: All countries described general Research strategies, outlining organizational and capacity objectives. Thematic fields, including Health, are mentioned in some strategies. A Health Research strategy was identified for 15 EU countries and not for 12. Ministries of Health led Research strategies for nine countries. Public Health Research was identified in only three strategies. National Research strategies did not refer to the European Union's Health Research programme. Conclusions: Public Health Research strategies of European countries need to be developed by ministries of Health, working with the Research community to achieve the European Research Area.
-
Public Health Research systems in the European union
Health research policy and systems, 2011Co-Authors: Cláudia Conceição, Mark I. MccarthyAbstract:Strengthening Health Research is an important objective for international Health organisations, but there has been less attention to support for Health Research in Europe. We describe the public-Health (population and organisational level) Research systems in the 27 European Union countries. We developed a typology for describing Health Research structures based on funding streams and strategies. We drew data from internet sources and asked country informants to review these for consistency and completeness. The structures were described as organograms and narratives in country profiles for each of the 27 EU member states. National public-Health Research structures included public and independent funding organisations, 'mixed' institutions (which receive funds, and both use and allocate them) and provider institutions. Most Health Research is funded through ministries of science or science councils (and sometimes foundations), while parliaments and regions may also contribute. National institutes of public Health are usually funded by ministries of Health. Many national Research organisations both determine Research programmes and undertake Health Research, but there is a move towards public-Health sciences within the universities, and a transition from internal grants to competitive funding. Of 27 national Research strategies, 17 referred to Health and 11 to public Health themes. Although all countries had strategies for public Health itself, we found little coherence in public-Health Research programmes. The European Commission has country contact points for both EU Research and Health programmes, but they do not coordinate with national Health-Research programmes. Public-Health Research is broadly distributed across programmes in EU countries. Better understanding of Research structures, programmes and results would improve recognition for public Health in Europe, and contribute to practice. EU ministries of Health should give greater attention to national public-Health Research strategies and programmes, and the European Union and the World Health Organisation can provide coordination and support.
Jayashri Kulkarni - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Funding for mental Health Research: the gap remains.
The Medical journal of Australia, 2011Co-Authors: Helen Christensen, Philip J Batterham, Ian B Hickie, Patrick D Mcgorry, Philip B Mitchell, Jayashri KulkarniAbstract:To examine the levels and growth rates of absolute funding to mental Health Research from 2001 to 2010, compared with other National Health Priority Areas (NHPAs), and the relative rate of mental Health funding compared with other NHPAs, by taking disease burden into account. The quality of Australian Research in mental Health was also examined using objective indicators of Research strength. Retrospective analysis of levels of funding overall and as a function of mental Health domains using data from the National Health and Medical Research Council, with and without adjustment for burden of disease. A keyword analysis was used to assess the success rate of mental Health project grant applications. Objective indicators of the quality of Australian mental Health Research were sought from citation indicators. Funding for mental Health Research relative to disease burden; funding according to disease category; project grant success rates. Using actual and adjusted figures, mental Health Research received a lower proportion of Health funding than other NHPAs, including cancer, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Research projects into substance misuse and autism were proportionately better funded than those in anxiety, depression or schizophrenia. A significant proportion of mental Health Research funding was awarded to Research into ageing. Citation data indicated that mental Health Research in Australia performed better than Research in neuroscience, clinical medicine, microbiology, and pharmacology and toxicology, and at a comparable level to immunology Research, despite poor levels of funding. Low levels of funding for mental Health Research appear to be largely attributable to low capacity. Mental Health Research in Australia is of high quality, and efforts are needed to build capacity.
-
Funding for mental Health Research: the gap remains
The Medical Journal of Australia, 2011Co-Authors: Helen Christensen, Philip J Batterham, Ian B Hickie, Patrick D Mcgorry, Philip B Mitchell, Jayashri KulkarniAbstract:OBJECTIVES To examine the levels and growth rates of absolute funding to mental Health Research from 2001 to 2010, compared with other National Health Priority Areas (NHPAs), and the relative rate of mental Health funding compared with other NHPAs, by taking disease burden into account. The quality of Australian Research in mental Health was also examined using objective indicators of Research strength. DESIGN AND SETTING Retrospective analysis of levels of funding overall and as a function of mental Health domains using data from the National Health and Medical Research Council, with and without adjustment for burden of disease. A keyword analysis was used to assess the success rate of mental Health project grant applications. Objective indicators of the quality of Australian mental Health Research were sought from citation indicators. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Funding for mental Health Research relative to disease burden; funding according to disease category; project grant success rates. RESULTS Using actual and adjusted figures, mental Health Research received a lower proportion of Health funding than other NHPAs, including cancer, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Research projects into substance misuse and autism were proportionately better funded than those in anxiety, depression or schizophrenia. A significant proportion of mental Health Research funding was awarded to Research into ageing. Citation data indicated that mental Health Research in Australia performed better than Research in neuroscience, clinical medicine, microbiology, and pharmacology and toxicology, and at a comparable level to immunology Research, despite poor levels of funding. CONCLUSIONS Low levels of funding for mental Health Research appear to be largely attributable to low capacity. Mental Health Research in Australia is of high quality, and efforts are needed to build capacity.
Helen Christensen - One of the best experts on this subject based on the ideXlab platform.
-
Funding for mental Health Research: the gap remains.
The Medical journal of Australia, 2011Co-Authors: Helen Christensen, Philip J Batterham, Ian B Hickie, Patrick D Mcgorry, Philip B Mitchell, Jayashri KulkarniAbstract:To examine the levels and growth rates of absolute funding to mental Health Research from 2001 to 2010, compared with other National Health Priority Areas (NHPAs), and the relative rate of mental Health funding compared with other NHPAs, by taking disease burden into account. The quality of Australian Research in mental Health was also examined using objective indicators of Research strength. Retrospective analysis of levels of funding overall and as a function of mental Health domains using data from the National Health and Medical Research Council, with and without adjustment for burden of disease. A keyword analysis was used to assess the success rate of mental Health project grant applications. Objective indicators of the quality of Australian mental Health Research were sought from citation indicators. Funding for mental Health Research relative to disease burden; funding according to disease category; project grant success rates. Using actual and adjusted figures, mental Health Research received a lower proportion of Health funding than other NHPAs, including cancer, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Research projects into substance misuse and autism were proportionately better funded than those in anxiety, depression or schizophrenia. A significant proportion of mental Health Research funding was awarded to Research into ageing. Citation data indicated that mental Health Research in Australia performed better than Research in neuroscience, clinical medicine, microbiology, and pharmacology and toxicology, and at a comparable level to immunology Research, despite poor levels of funding. Low levels of funding for mental Health Research appear to be largely attributable to low capacity. Mental Health Research in Australia is of high quality, and efforts are needed to build capacity.
-
Funding for mental Health Research: the gap remains
The Medical Journal of Australia, 2011Co-Authors: Helen Christensen, Philip J Batterham, Ian B Hickie, Patrick D Mcgorry, Philip B Mitchell, Jayashri KulkarniAbstract:OBJECTIVES To examine the levels and growth rates of absolute funding to mental Health Research from 2001 to 2010, compared with other National Health Priority Areas (NHPAs), and the relative rate of mental Health funding compared with other NHPAs, by taking disease burden into account. The quality of Australian Research in mental Health was also examined using objective indicators of Research strength. DESIGN AND SETTING Retrospective analysis of levels of funding overall and as a function of mental Health domains using data from the National Health and Medical Research Council, with and without adjustment for burden of disease. A keyword analysis was used to assess the success rate of mental Health project grant applications. Objective indicators of the quality of Australian mental Health Research were sought from citation indicators. MAIN OUTCOME MEASURES Funding for mental Health Research relative to disease burden; funding according to disease category; project grant success rates. RESULTS Using actual and adjusted figures, mental Health Research received a lower proportion of Health funding than other NHPAs, including cancer, diabetes and cardiovascular disease. Research projects into substance misuse and autism were proportionately better funded than those in anxiety, depression or schizophrenia. A significant proportion of mental Health Research funding was awarded to Research into ageing. Citation data indicated that mental Health Research in Australia performed better than Research in neuroscience, clinical medicine, microbiology, and pharmacology and toxicology, and at a comparable level to immunology Research, despite poor levels of funding. CONCLUSIONS Low levels of funding for mental Health Research appear to be largely attributable to low capacity. Mental Health Research in Australia is of high quality, and efforts are needed to build capacity.
