European Union investment and countries’ involvement in mental health research between 2007 and 2013

Hazo, Jean-Baptiste; Gervaix, Jeanne; Gandré, Coralie; Brunn, Matthias; Leboyer, Marion; Chevreul, Karine

doi:10.1111/acps.12584

Cited by 11 publications

(7 citation statements)

References 26 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…A more recent report on participation found that in FP7 21% of all projects involved at least one EU-13 organizations, and in the Horizon 2020 programme this ratio had fallen to 17% [25]. A recent study also confirmed that EU research grant allocation did not match the country specific burden incurred by mental disorders, and Eastern-European member states were underrepresented among beneficiaries [26].…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is there a fair allocation of healthcare research funds by the European Union?

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background This study aimed to investigate the distribution of European Union (EU) healthcare research grants across EU countries, and to study the effect of the potential influencing factors on grant allocation. Methods We analysed publicly available data on healthcare research grants from the 7th Framework Programme and the Horizon 2020 Programme allocated to beneficiaries between 2007 and 2016. Grant allocation was analysed at the beneficiary-, country-, and country group-level (EU-15 versus newer Member States, defined as EU-13). The investigated country-level explanatory variables included GDP per capita, population size, overall disease burden, and healthcare research excellence. Grant amounts per 100,000 inhabitants were used as an outcome variable in the regression analyses. Results Research funds were disproportionally allocated to EU-15 versus the EU-13, as 96.9% of total healthcare grants were assigned to EU-15 countries. At the beneficiary level, EU funding was positively influenced by participating in previous grants. The average grant amount per beneficiary was higher for EU-15 organizations. In the multiple regression analysis GDP per capita (p = 0.002) and research excellence (p<0.001) had a significant positive association with EU funding. Population size had an inverted U-shaped relationship with EU funding for healthcare research, having the largest per capita funding in second and the third quartiles (p = 0.03 and p = 0.02). Conclusion The uneven allocation of healthcare research funds across EU countries was influenced by GDP per capita, medical research excellence and population size. Wealthier countries with an average population size and strong research excellence in healthcare had more EU funding for healthcare research. Higher disease burden apparently was not associated with more EU research funding. While our findings are in line with analyses on previous periods, they suggest that the EU did not implement any effective policy measures to improve the unfair allocation of research grants.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Is there a fair allocation of healthcare research funds by the European Union?

et al. 2019

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Though any research aimed at finding, testing or understanding the nature and treatment of mental disorders is potentially valuable, limited resources set constraints and impose defining priorities. Mental health funding is usually limited (Hazo, et al, 2016), though with significant discrepancies across countries (Hazo, et al, 2017). Funding calls and reports make it clear certain topics are prioritized.…”

Section: Are Research Decisions Based On Questions Relevant To Users mentioning

confidence: 99%

Increase value and reduce waste in research on psychological therapies

Cristea

Naudet

2019

Behaviour Research and Therapy

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

A seminal Lancet series focussed on increasing value and reducing waste in biomedical research, providing a transferrable template to diagnose problems in research. Our goal was to document how some of these sources of waste apply to mental health and particularly psychological treatments research. We synthesize and critically evaluate empirical findings in relation to four major sources: i) defining research priorities; ii) research design, methods and analysis; iii) accessibility of research information; iv) accuracy and usability of research reports. We demonstrate that each source of waste considered is well-represented and amply documented within this field. We describe hype and insufficient consideration of what is known in defining research priorities, persistent risk of bias, particularly due to selective outcome reporting, for psychotherapy trials across mental disorders, intellectual and financial biases, direct and indirect evidence of publication bias, largely inexistent adoption of data sharing, issues of multiplicity and fragmentation of data and findings, and insufficient adoption of reporting guidelines. We expand on a few general solutions, including supporting meta-research, properly testing interventions to increase research quality, placing open science at the center of psychological treatment research and remaining vigilant particularly regarding the strains of research currently prioritized, such as experimental psychopathology.

show abstract

“…We extracted the 25 783 research projects funded by the European Commission's Directorate for Innovation and Research between 2007 and 2013. Methods and results of this query have been published elsewhere (Hazo et al, 2016) and will not be displayed in detail in the present paper.…”

Section: Part 2 -Searching Of Databasesmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…Several publications provided the share of health research funding dedicated to MHR in comparison with the share of burden of diseases occupied by mental disorders, sometimes comparing these indicators with others. They repeatedly showed discrepancies: first between the share of health funding dedicated to MHR in comparison with the share of total DALYs attributable to mental disorders, sometimes in comparison with such indicators in other nosographic fields (Chevreul et al, 2012, Christensen et al, 2011, Hazo et al, 2016, Hazo et al, 2017, Gandré et al, 2015, Kingdon, 2006, Kingdon and Wykes, 2013; and second discrepancies between groups of mental disorders' share of DALYs and funding attributed respectively (Batterham et al, 2016, Christensen et al, 2013, Jorm et al, 2002, Murray et al, 2017. Although the published estimations of the impact of MHR are high (Hickie et al, 2005, Scott, 2005, Kelly et al, 2006, Guthrie et al, 2016, Henderson, 2002).…”

Section: Literature Reviewmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…In fact, this is likely to be a substantial underestimate, mainly due to the omission of the impact of avoidable comorbidities linked to psychiatric disorders (Charlson et al, 2015, Patel et al, 2015, Ferrari et al, 2014, Vigo et al, 2016. In comparison, the share of health research funding dedicated to mental health in EU FP7 program is only 5% (Hazo et al, 2016) and between 4 and 10% at the national level in the UK, France, Spain and Finland in 2011 (Hazo et al, 2017).…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

European mental health research resources: Picture and recommendations of the ROAMER project

Hazo

Brunn

Wykes

et al. 2019

European Neuropsychopharmacology

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

As part of the Roamer project, we sought to have a picture of the available mental health research (MHR) funding, capacity-building and infrastructures resources and to establish consensus-based recommendations that would allow an increase of European MHR resources and enable better use and accessibility to them. The methods fell into three sections (i) a review of the literature, (ii) a mental health-related keywords search within the Cordis ® , On-Course ® and Meril ® databases which contain information on European research funding, training and infrastructures. These reviews provided an overview that was presented to (iii) two experts workshops with 28 participants drawn from academic which identified gaps and produced Highlights  Infrastructures and training dedicated to mental health research are scarce  Resources for mental health research do not match the burden of mental disorders  Important gaps concern the underutilization and dispersion of existing resources  Experts' recommendations implemented would allow reducing the identified gaps

show abstract

European Union investment and countries’ involvement in mental health research between 2007 and 2013

Abstract: EU funding of mental health research does not match the burden incurred by mental disorders and must be increased in the next framework programme.

Cited by 11 publications

References 26 publications

Is there a fair allocation of healthcare research funds by the European Union?

Is there a fair allocation of healthcare research funds by the European Union?

Increase value and reduce waste in research on psychological therapies

European mental health research resources: Picture and recommendations of the ROAMER project

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About