BackgroundLittle is known about who the main public and philanthropic funders of health research are globally, what they fund and how they decide what gets funded. This study aims to identify the 10 largest public and philanthropic health research funding organizations in the world, to report on what they fund, and on how they distribute their funds.MethodsThe world’s key health research funding organizations were identified through a search strategy aimed at identifying different types of funding organizations. Organizations were ranked by their reported total annual health research expenditures. For the 10 largest funding organizations, data were collected on (1) funding amounts allocated towards 20 health areas, and (2) schemes employed for distributing funding (intramural/extramural, project/‘people’/organizational and targeted/untargeted funding). Data collection consisted of a review of reports and websites and interviews with representatives of funding organizations. Data collection was challenging; data were often not reported or reported using different classification systems.ResultsOverall, 55 key health research funding organizations were identified. The 10 largest funding organizations together funded research for $37.1 billion, constituting 40% of all public and philanthropic health research spending globally. The largest funder was the United States National Institutes of Health ($26.1 billion), followed by the European Commission ($3.7 billion), and the United Kingdom Medical Research Council ($1.3 billion). The largest philanthropic funder was the Wellcome Trust ($909.1 million), the largest funder of health research through official development assistance was USAID ($186.4 million), and the largest multilateral funder was the World Health Organization ($135.0 million). Funding distribution mechanisms and funding patterns varied substantially between the 10 largest funders.ConclusionsThere is a need for increased transparency about who the main funders of health research are globally, what they fund and how they decide on what gets funded, and for improving the evidence base for various funding models. Data on organizations’ funding patterns and funding distribution mechanisms are often not available, and when they are, they are reported using different classification systems. To start increasing transparency in health research funding, we have established www.healthresearchfunders.org that lists health research funding organizations worldwide and their health research expenditures.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (doi:10.1186/s12961-015-0074-z) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

IntroductionShort-term missions providing patients in low-income countries with reconstructive surgery are often criticised because evidence of their value is lacking. This study aims to assess the effectiveness of short-term reconstructive surgical missions in low-income and middle-income countries.MethodsA systematic review was conducted according to PRISMA guidelines. We searched five medical databases from inception up to 2 July 2018. Original studies of short-term reconstructive surgical missions were included, which reported data on patient safety measurements, health gains of individual patients and sustainability. Data were combined to generate overall outcomes, including overall complication rates.ResultsOf 1662 identified studies, 41 met full inclusion criteria, which included 48 546 patients. The overall study quality according to Oxford CEBM and GRADE was low. Ten studies reported a minimum of 6 months’ follow-up, showing a follow-up rate of 56.0% and a complication rate of 22.3%. Twelve studies that did not report on duration or follow-up rate reported a complication rate of 1.2%. Fifteen out of 20 studies (75%) that reported on follow-up also reported on sustainable characteristics.ConclusionsEvidence on the patient outcomes of reconstructive surgical missions is scarce and of limited quality. Higher complication rates were reported in studies which explicitly mentioned the duration and rate of follow-up. Studies with a low follow-up quality might be under-reporting complication rates and overestimating the positive impact of missions. This review indicates that missions should develop towards sustainable partnerships. These partnerships should provide quality aftercare, perform outcome research and build the surgical capacity of local healthcare systems.PROSPERO registration numberCRD42018099285.

No abstract

Introduction: An estimated five billion people lack access to safe surgical care across the globe. Traditionally, providing short-term surgical missions has been the main strategy for health professionals from high-income countries to support surgical care in low- and middle-income countries. However, traditional missions have come under criticism because evidence of their sustainable value is lacking, along with any robust documentation and application of recommendations by participants of ongoing surgical missions. Using survey data collection and analysis, this study aims to provide a framework on how to improve the use of visiting surgical teams to strengthen surgical services in resource-poor settings. Method: An online survey was conducted among members of foreign teams to collect data on five specific areas: basic characteristics of the mission, main activities. Follow-up and reporting, the local registration process and collaboration with local actors. The survey included 58 respondents from 13 countries, and representing 20 organizations. Results: During surgical missions, training activities were considered most impactful, and reporting on outcome/s, along with long-term follow-up was strongly recommended. According to almost all participants (94%), the focus should be on establishing collaborative practices with local actors, and encourage strategic, long-term changes under their leadership. Conclusion: Building sustainable partnerships within local healthcare systems is the way forward for foreign surgical parties that aim to improve surgical care in low- and- middle income countries. When foreign help is offered, local stakeholders should be in the lead. Highlights

Background: Worldwide, many scar contracture release surgeries are performed to improve range of motion (ROM) after a burn injury. There is a particular need in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) for such procedures. However, well-designed longitudinal studies on this topic are lacking globally. The present study therefore aimed to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of contracture release surgery performed in an LMIC. Methods: This pre-/postintervention study was conducted in a rural regional referral hospital in Tanzania. All patients undergoing contracture release surgery during surgical missions were eligible. ROM data were indexed to normal values to compare various joints. Surgery was considered effective if the ROM of all planes of motion of a single joint increased at least 25% postoperatively or if the ROM reached 100% of normal ROM. Follow-ups were at discharge and at 1, 3, 6, and 12 months postoperatively. Results: A total of 70 joints of 44 patients were included. Follow-up rate at 12 months was 86%. Contracture release surgery was effective in 79% of the joints (P < 0.001) and resulted in a mean ROM improvement from 32% to 90% of the normal value (P < 0.001). A predictive factor for a quicker rehabilitation was lower age (R 2 = 11%, P = 0.001). Complication rate was 52%, consisting of mostly minor complications. Conclusions: This is the first study to evaluate the long-term effectiveness of contracture release surgery in an LMIC. The follow-up rate was high and showed that contracture release surgery is safe, effective, and sustainable. We call for the implementation of outcome research in future surgical missions.

No abstract

This study investigates patients’ access to surgical care for burns in a low-and-middle-income setting by studying timeliness, surgical capacity, and affordability. A survey was conducted in a regional referral hospital in Manyara, Tanzania. In total, 67 patients were included. To obtain information on burn victims in need of surgical care, irrespective of time lapsed from the burn injury, both patients with burn wounds and patients with contractures were included. Information provided by patients and/or caregivers was supplemented with data from patient files and interviews with hospital administration and physicians. In the burn wound group, 50 percent reached a facility within 24 hours after the injury. Referrals from other health facilities to the regional referral hospital were made within three weeks for 74 percent in this group. Of contracture patients, seventy four percent, had sought healthcare after the acute burn injury. Of the same group, only 4 percent had been treated with skin grafts beforehand, and 70 percent never received surgical care or a referral. Combined, both groups indicated that lack of trust, surgical capacity, and referral timeliness were important factors negatively impacting patient access to surgical care. Accounting for hospital fees indicated patients routinely exceeded the catastrophic expenditure threshold. It was determined that healthcare for burn victims is without financial risk protection. We recommend strengthening burn care and reconstructive surgical programs in similar settings, using a more comprehensive health systems approach to identify and address both medical and socio-economic factors that determine patient mortality and disability.

No abstract