Estimating the payoffs from cardiovascular disease research in Canada: an economic analysis

Oliveira, Claire de; Nguyen, Hai; Wijeysundera, Harindra C.; Wong, William; Grootendorst, Paul; Krahn, Murray

doi:10.9778/cmajo.20130003

Cited by 12 publications

(5 citation statements)

References 38 publications

(12 reference statements)

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…Such models tend to operate at a much higher level of aggregation than Payback or CAHS – typically seeking to track all the outputs of a research council [ 34 , 35 ], national research into a broad disease area (e.g. cardiovascular disease, cancer) [ 36 – 38 ], or even an entire national medical research budget [ 39 ].…”

Section: Established Approaches To Measuring Research Impactmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…A key debate in the literature on monetisation of research impact addresses the level of aggregation. First applied to major research budgets in a ‘top-down’ or macro approach [ 39 ], whereby total health gains are apportioned to a particular research investment, the principles of monetisation are increasingly being used in a ‘bottom-up’ [ 34 , 36 – 38 ] manner to collect data on specific project or programme research outputs. The benefits of new treatments and their usage in clinical practice can be built up to estimate returns from a body of research.…”

Section: Established Approaches To Measuring Research Impactmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

Research impact: a narrative review

Greenhalgh

Raftery

Hanney

et al. 2016

BMC Med

235

230

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Impact occurs when research generates benefits (health, economic, cultural) in addition to building the academic knowledge base. Its mechanisms are complex and reflect the multiple ways in which knowledge is generated and utilised. Much progress has been made in measuring both the outcomes of research and the processes and activities through which these are achieved, though the measurement of impact is not without its critics. We review the strengths and limitations of six established approaches (Payback, Research Impact Framework, Canadian Academy of Health Sciences, monetisation, societal impact assessment, UK Research Excellence Framework) plus recently developed and largely untested ones (including metrics and electronic databases). We conclude that (1) different approaches to impact assessment are appropriate in different circumstances; (2) the most robust and sophisticated approaches are labour-intensive and not always feasible or affordable; (3) whilst most metrics tend to capture direct and proximate impacts, more indirect and diffuse elements of the research-impact link can and should be measured; and (4) research on research impact is a rapidly developing field with new methodologies on the horizon.

show abstract

Section: Established Approaches To Measuring Research Impactmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Established Approaches To Measuring Research Impactmentioning

confidence: 99%

Research impact: a narrative review

Greenhalgh

Raftery

Hanney

et al. 2016

BMC Med

235

230

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Intangible costs (HRQoL costs) were captured through QALYs proxied with the HUI and then converted into monetary units using a value of $50,000 per QALY. [35,36] We identified HUI values of BCC and SCC for the local disease at 0.97 based on Chen et al, [37] and 0.67 for terminal cases based on Gaulin et al [38] Case QALYs were compared with population average QALYs, adjusted for age, sex, and population life expectancy. We also conducted a sensitivity analysis for this component using alternative monetary value of a QALY of, $100,000 and $150,000.…”

Section: Intangible Costsmentioning

confidence: 99%

The economic burden of occupational non-melanoma skin cancer due to solar radiation

Mofidi

Tompa

Spencer

et al. 2018

Journal of Occupational and Environmental Hygiene

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Solar ultraviolet (UV) radiation is the second most prevalent carcinogenic exposure in Canada and is similarly important in other countries with large Caucasian populations. The objective of this article was to estimate the economic burden associated with newly diagnosed non-melanoma skin cancers (NMSCs) attributable to occupational solar radiation exposure. Key cost categories considered were direct costs (healthcare costs, out-of-pocket costs (OOPCs), and informal caregiver costs); indirect costs (productivity/output costs and home production costs); and intangible costs (monetary value of the loss of health-related quality of life (HRQoL)). To generate the burden estimates, we used secondary data from multiple sources applied to computational methods developed from an extensive review of the literature. An estimated 2,846 (5.3%) of the 53,696 newly diagnosed cases of basal cell carcinoma (BCC) and 1,710 (9.2%) of the 18,549 newly diagnosed cases of squamous cell carcinoma (SCC) in 2011 in Canada were attributable to occupational solar radiation exposure. The combined total for direct and indirect costs of occupational NMSC cases is $28.9 million ($15.9 million for BCC and $13.0 million for SCC), and for intangible costs is $5.7 million ($0.6 million for BCC and $5.1 million for SCC). On a per-case basis, the total costs are $5,670 for BCC and $10,555 for SCC. The higher per-case cost for SCC is largely a result of a lower survival rate, and hence higher indirect and intangible costs. Our estimates can be used to raise awareness of occupational solar UV exposure as an important causal factor in NMSCs and can highlight the importance of occupational BCC and SCC among other occupational cancers.

show abstract

“…However, new discoveries have undoubtedly played some role. An important area for further research is to quantify the relationship between expenditures and health gains, through a formal return on investment analysis [ 23 ]. Other jurisdictions, such as the UK, have undertaken such analyses and found that for every $1 spent on public/charitable CVD-related research, UK citizens would receive an income stream of about £0.09 per year in perpetuity.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

How much are we spending? The estimation of research expenditures on cardiovascular disease in Canada

Oliveira

Nguyen

Wijeysundera

et al. 2012

BMC Health Serv Res

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundCardiovascular disease (CVD) is a leading cause of death in Canada and is a priority area for medical research. The research funding landscape in Canada has changed quite a bit over the last few decades, as have funding levels. Our objective was to estimate the magnitude of expenditures on CVD research for the public and charitable (not-for profit) sectors in Canada between 1975 and 2005.MethodsTo estimate research expenditures for the public and charitable sectors, we compiled a complete list of granting agencies in Canada, contacted each agency and the Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR), and extracted data from the organizations’ annual reports and the Reference Lists of health research in Canada. Two independent reviewers scanned all grant and fellowship/scholarship titles (and summary/key words, when available) of all research projects funded to determine their inclusion in our analysis; only grants and fellowships/scholarships that focused on heart and peripheral vascular diseases were selected.ResultsPublic/charitable sector funding increased 7.5 times, from close to $13 million (in constant dollars) in 1975 to almost $96 million (in constant dollars) in 2005 (base year). The Medical Research Council of Canada (MRCC)/CIHR and the Heart & Stroke Foundation of Canada have been the main founders of this type of research during our analysis period; the Alberta Heritage Foundation for Medical Research and the Fonds de la recherche en santé du Quebec have played major roles at the provincial level. The Indirect Costs Research Program and Canada Foundation for Innovation have played major roles in terms of funding in the last years of our analysis.ConclusionPublic/charitable-funded research expenditures devoted to CVD have increased substantially over the last three decades. By international standards, the evidence suggests Canada spends less on health-related research than the UK and the US, at least in absolute terms. However, this may not be too problematic as Canada is likely to free-ride from research undertaken elsewhere. Understanding these past trends in research funding may provide decision makers with important information for planning future research efforts. Future work in this area should include the use of our coding methods to obtain estimates of funded research for other diseases in Canada.

show abstract

Estimating the payoffs from cardiovascular disease research in Canada: an economic analysis

Abstract: Canadians obtain relatively high health and economic gains from investments in cardiovascular disease research. Every $1 invested in cardiovascular disease research by public or charitable sources yields a stream of benefits of roughly $0.21 to the Canadian economy per year, in perpetuity.

Cited by 12 publications

References 38 publications

Research impact: a narrative review

Research impact: a narrative review

The economic burden of occupational non-melanoma skin cancer due to solar radiation

How much are we spending? The estimation of research expenditures on cardiovascular disease in Canada

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About