Is there enough research output of EU projects available to assess and improve health system performance? An attempt to understand and categorise the output of EU projects conducted between 2002 and 2012

Zander, Britta; Busse, Reinhard

doi:10.1186/s12961-016-0165-5

Cited by 5 publications

(4 citation statements)

References 14 publications

Supporting

Mentioning

Contrasting

Order By: Relevance

“…They have regular and rather complete data collections, substantial output in the form of several articles and/or reports, and often recognizable policy influence. From the results, policy-supporting projects and networks in the area of health system performance assessment (HSPA) appear scarce [ 16 ]. However, the past years did show an increase in HSPA initiatives by the larger institutions in the European region, such as the OECD, the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies, the WHO Regional Office for Europe and the European Commission.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

“…The latter may be a more important output for the Framework Programmes than for the Health Programmes. Difficulties finding project information has also been pointed out by Zander and Busse in their analysis as part of the EUROREACH project; they recommend stronger action on dissemination of outputs to the research community, policy makers and funders [ 16 ]. Lost output may lead to duplication in research and project topics, having to reinvent the wheel and inefficient resource allocation.…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

See 1 more Smart Citation

EU health information progress: the harvest of policy supporting projects and networks

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

Background The European Commission supports the initiation of health information related projects and networks serving comparative population health monitoring and health system performance assessment. Many of these projects and networks have produced relevant data, standards, methods, indicators and knowledge that may be lost as these networks become inactive. The aim of this project retrieval and review was to identify health information projects and networks and their produced output; and subsequently facilitate systematic access to this information for policy makers, researchers and interested others via a web-based repository. Methods The scope of this article covers 1. population health oriented topics and 2. health system/health services oriented topics. Out of scope are specific infectious diseases; individual rare diseases; and the occurrence and effects of specific medical treatments, interventions and diagnostics; cohort studies; or studies focusing on research methods. We searched bibliographic databases and EU project databases for policy supporting projects and networks and selected those fulfilling our inclusion criteria after more in-depth inspection. We searched for their outputs. In addition, we reviewed country participation in these projects and networks. Results We identified 36 projects and networks, 16 of which are population health oriented, 6 are health systems and services oriented and 14 cover both. Their total volume of output is not easily retrievable, as many project websites have been discontinued. Some networks and/or their outputs have found continuance within European agencies and/or national institutions. Others are struggling or have gone lost, despite their policy relevance. Participation in the projects was not evenly distributed across Europe. Project information was made available through the Health Information Portal. Conclusions EU funded projects and networks have contributed greatly to the evidence-base for policy by providing comparative health information. However, more action is needed to evaluate and conserve their outputs and facilitate continued contribution to the field after project funding stops. The realization of a sustainable infrastructure for these projects and networks is urgent. The Health Information Portal can play an important role in conserving and reusing health information. Information inequalities may exist across Europe but need further investigating.

show abstract

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

EU health information progress: the harvest of policy supporting projects and networks

2022

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

show abstract

“…Many authors have pointed to limitations in the CORDIS database in mapping and monitoring medical research as well as in sharing its outputs, emphasizing that transparency is necessary to evaluate whether funding priorities are related to societal needs and to burden of disease of European countries and whether funded research has produced information useful to improve the health of European citizens [26][27][28] .…”

Section: Discussionmentioning

confidence: 99%

Biomedical and health research: an analysis of country participation and research fields in the EU’s Horizon 2020

Gallo¹,

Costantini²,

Puglisi³

et al. 2020

Eur J Epidemiol

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

We analysed the Horizon 2020 project database, currently the European Union’s (EU) largest framework programme for research and innovation—nearly 80 billion euros available over 7 years (2014–2020), to estimate the amount and type of EU-supported biomedical and health research and funding distribution among EU member states and non-European countries. Out of 20,877 projects as of 14th January 2019, a total of 4865 projects were classified as human health related. Ninety-four countries/territories worldwide participated in at least one biomedical project. The EU-15 original member states showed the highest participation as project leaders/partners and for acquired funding. Strong unequal funding distribution and participation between EU-15 and the 13 newest members—with EU-15 receiving about 87% of funding and EU-13 only 3%—have been evidenced. For both EU-15 and EU-13 we detected about 20% of projects involving the public and private sectors, according to Horizon 2020 guidelines. The largest percentage of projects was in the areas of biotechnological research (28.28%) and “basic research” (26.95%); these two sectors together accounted for 46.99% of the total funding assigned (7.9 billion euros). Research in neurosciences and neurological diseases appeared to be an increasing study area. Neurological and mental diseases covered about 21% of projects. Epidemiological studies accounted for about 5% of the total projects and for 14% of funding. Strong correlations were shown by indicators of financial and scientific capacity to identify success rates in obtaining EU funding, making the gap between countries with strong and weak research infrastructures difficult to overcome. Electronic supplementary material The online version of this article (10.1007/s10654-020-00690-9) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

“…Yet, there are a paucity of such research outputs from this and other projects in the public domain and peer-reviewed literature [38], similar to what is observed for other European-funded projects and initiatives. A recent study in Health Research Policy and Systems demonstrated that, although significant public resources are invested in European-funded health projects, data and reports from such projects are often unavailable or inaccessible [39]. Globally, billions of dollars in research investment are wasted when full information about health research studies is inaccessible [40].…”

Section: Introductionmentioning

confidence: 99%

New indicators and indexes for benchmarking university–industry–government innovation in medical and life science clusters: results from the European FP7 Regions of Knowledge HealthTIES project

Edmunds

Gluderer²,

Ovseiko

et al. 2019

Health Res Policy Sys

View full text Add to dashboard Cite

BackgroundWhile the European Union is striving to become the ‘Innovation Union’, there remains a lack of quantifiable indicators to compare and benchmark regional innovation clusters. To address this issue, a HealthTIES (Healthcare, Technology and Innovation for Economic Success) consortium was funded by the European Union’s Regions of Knowledge initiative, research and innovation funding programme FP7. HealthTIES examined whether the health technology innovation cycle was functioning differently in five European regional innovation clusters and proposed regional and joint actions to improve their performance. The clusters included BioCat (Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain), Medical Delta (Leiden, Rotterdam and Delft, South Holland, Netherlands), Oxford and Thames Valley (United Kingdom), Life Science Zürich (Switzerland), and Innova Észak-Alföld (Debrecen, Hungary).MethodsAppreciation of the ‘triple helix’ of university–industry–government innovation provided the impetus for the development of two quantifiable innovation indexes and related indicators. The HealthTIES H-index is calculated for disease and technology platforms based on the h-index proposed by Hirsch. The HealthTIES Innovation Index is calculated for regions based on 32 relevant quantitative and discriminative indicators grouped into 12 categories and 3 innovation phases, namely ‘Input’ (n = 12), ‘Innovation System’ (n = 9) and ‘Output’ (n = 11).ResultsThe HealthTIES regions had developed relatively similar disease and technology platform profiles, yet with distinctive strengths and weaknesses. The regional profiles of the innovation cycle in each of the three phases were surprisingly divergent. Comparative assessments based on the indicators and indexes helped identify and share best practice and inform regional and joint action plans to strengthen the competitiveness of the HealthTIES regions.ConclusionThe HealthTIES indicators and indexes provide useful practical tools for the measurement and benchmarking of university–industry–government innovation in European medical and life science clusters. They are validated internally within the HealthTIES consortium and appear to have a degree of external prima facie validity. Potentially, the tools and accompanying analyses can be used beyond the HealthTIES consortium to inform other regional governments, researchers and, possibly, large companies searching for their next location, analyse and benchmark ‘triple helix’ dynamics within their own networks over time, and to develop integrated public–private and cross-regional research and innovation strategies in Europe and beyond.Electronic supplementary materialThe online version of this article (10.1186/s12961-019-0414-5) contains supplementary material, which is available to authorized users.

show abstract

Is there enough research output of EU projects available to assess and improve health system performance? An attempt to understand and categorise the output of EU projects conducted between 2002 and 2012

Cited by 5 publications

References 14 publications

EU health information progress: the harvest of policy supporting projects and networks

EU health information progress: the harvest of policy supporting projects and networks

Biomedical and health research: an analysis of country participation and research fields in the EU’s Horizon 2020

New indicators and indexes for benchmarking university–industry–government innovation in medical and life science clusters: results from the European FP7 Regions of Knowledge HealthTIES project

Contact Info

Product

Resources

About