European Biomedical Research Infrastructures and the Fight against COVID-19 Pandemic

Тарасова, Е. В.; Makarevich, P.I.; Efimenko, A.Yu.; Kulebyakina, M.A.; Akopyan, Zh. A.

doi:10.17691/stm2021.13.1.01

Cited by 3 publications

(6 citation statements)

References 2 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…In 2002, the European Strategic Forum for Research Infrastructures was created to develop a unified strategy for scientific research in Europe and to overcome the fragmentation of research efforts at national and regional levels, leading to a roadmap for the development of European research infrastructures. As a result, in 2009, the European Research Infrastructure Consortium (ERIC) was created to provide legal status for these infrastructures 99 100. Two resulting facilities include the European Clinical Research Infrastructure Network (ERIC), created to facilitate the implementation of international clinical trials in Europe; and the European Research Infrastructure on Highly Pathogenic Agents, created to coordinate research and development of methods to combat HCIDs 100…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A narrative review of high-level isolation unit operational and infrastructure features

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

High-level isolation units (HLIUs) are specially designed facilities for care and management of patients with suspected or confirmed high-consequence infectious diseases (HCIDs), equipped with unique infrastructure and operational features. While individual HLIUs have published on their experiences caring for patients with HCIDs and two previous HLIU consensus efforts have outlined key components of HLIUs, we aimed to summarise the existing literature that describes best practices, challenges and core features of these specialised facilities. A narrative review of the literature was conducted using keywords associated with HLIUs and HCIDs. A total of 100 articles were used throughout the manuscript from the literature search or from alternate methods like reference checks or snowballing. Articles were sorted into categories (eg, physical infrastructure, laboratory, internal transport); for each category, a synthesis of the relevant literature was conducted to describe best practices, experiences and operational features. The review and summary of HLIU experiences, best practices, challenges and components can serve as a resource for units continuing to improve readiness, or for hospitals in early stages of developing their HLIU teams and planning or constructing their units. The COVID-19 pandemic, a global outbreak of mpox, sporadic cases of viral haemorrhagic fevers in Europe and the USA, and recent outbreaks of Lassa fever, Sudan Ebolavirus, and Marburg emphasise the need for an extensive summary of HLIU practices to inform readiness and response.

show abstract

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

A narrative review of high-level isolation unit operational and infrastructure features

et al. 2023

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Most included articles (33, 75.0%) featured impact assessments that dealt with funding portfolios based at the project or grant level. Articles addressing other types of research funding included the following: two articles were large ROI studies which looked at all research funding in a particular sector (from multiple funders) by total research spend across funders, not at outcomes generated at the individual project level by funder [ 35 , 62 ]; one article examined the impact of Cochrane reviews themselves (arising from previous NIHR project funding) [ 70 ]; two articles examined prepared case studies of funded projects [ 73 , 87 ]; one article examined the collective impact of all Marie Curie palliative and end-of-life care funding, including research projects but also research centres, programme leads, hospices and fellowship funding [ 58 ]; one article examined the scientometric impact of researchers funded by European Research Council projects [ 76 ]; two studies examined the impact of the NIH CTSA Program hubs, where the unit of analysis was a CTSA hub (which necessarily meant they had been the recipient of an NIH-funded award) [ 52 , 53 ]; one study examined the impact of European biomedical research infrastructures in the fight against COVID-19 [ 54 ], where the unit of analysis was funded infrastructures but the project/award mechanisms were not well specified; and two studies did not provide enough information to determine the unit of portfolio being assessed [ 55 , 88 ].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…However, due to their more narrative style, we were unable to fully code them as we did for the rest of the data set. When this happened, we coded them as "not possible to code" within our data [51][52][53][54][55]. These papers represented two papers about the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) [52,53], one about Australian funding [51], one about the European Commission [54], and one about the International Development Research Centre [55].…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…When this happened, we coded them as "not possible to code" within our data [51][52][53][54][55]. These papers represented two papers about the United States National Institutes of Health (NIH) [52,53], one about Australian funding [51], one about the European Commission [54], and one about the International Development Research Centre [55]. A summary of results is provided in Table 2, and an Additional file 2 shows all included articles coded in detail.…”

Section: Resultsmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Notably, included papers may have covered a higher-profile funder such as the United States Agency for International Development (USAID) but focused on a small subset of projects (the United States President's Emergency Plan for AIDS Relief [PEPFAR] HIV/AIDS implementation science awards [68], of which 10 projects were profiled), or could have covered a smaller funder, such as the Community Pharmacy Foundation, which analysed 58 projects. The four most frequently observed funders in our portfolio were the United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) (5) [69][70][71][72][73], the European Commission (4) [54,[74][75][76], MRC (3) [64,66,77] and NIH (3) [52,53,78].…”

Section: Which Funders Have Published Rias Of Their Portfolios?mentioning

confidence: 99%

See 2 more Smart Citations

What funders are doing to assess the impact of their investments in health and biomedical research

Abudu

Oliver

Boaz

2022

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As pressures to maximize research funding grow, biomedical research funders are increasingly tasked with demonstrating the long-term and real-world impacts of their funded research investments. Over the past three decades, research impact assessments (RIA) have emerged as an important tool for analysing the impacts of research by incorporating logic models, frameworks and indicators to track measures of knowledge production, capacity-building, development of research products, adoption of research into clinical guidelines and policies, and the realization of health, economic and social benefits. While there are currently several models for RIA within the literature, less attention has been paid to how funders can practically select and implement a RIA model to demonstrate the impacts of their own research portfolios. In this paper, a literature review was performed to understand (1) which research funders have performed RIAs of their research portfolios to date; (2) how funders have designed their assessments, including the models and tools they have used; (3) what challenges to and facilitators of success have funders found when adopting the RIA model to their own portfolio; and (4) who participates in the assessments. Forty-four papers from both published and grey literature were found to meet the review criteria and were examined in detail. There is a growing culture of RIA among funders, and included papers spanned a diverse set of funders from 10 countries or regions. Over half of funders (59.1%) used a framework to conduct their assessment, and a variety of methods for collecting impact data were reported. Issues of methodological rigour were observed across studies in the review, and this was related to numerous challenges funders faced in designing timely RIAs with quality impact data. Over a third of articles (36.4%) included input from stakeholders, yet only one article reported surveying patients and members of the public as part of the assessment. To advance RIA among funders, we offer several recommendations for increasing the methodological rigour of RIAs and suggestions for future research, and call for a careful reflection of the voices needed in an impact assessment to ensure that RIAs are having a meaningful impact on patients and the public.

show abstract

Legal Framework for Shaping and Promoting the Biomedical Research Infrastructure

Ivanov

2022

Lecture Notes in Civil Engineering

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

European Biomedical Research Infrastructures and the Fight against COVID-19 Pandemic

Cited by 3 publications

References 2 publications

A narrative review of high-level isolation unit operational and infrastructure features

A narrative review of high-level isolation unit operational and infrastructure features

What funders are doing to assess the impact of their investments in health and biomedical research

Legal Framework for Shaping and Promoting the Biomedical Research Infrastructure

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About