4.6 Article

UK research spend in 2008 and 2012: comparing stroke, cancer, coronary heart disease and dementia

期刊

BMJ OPEN
卷 5, 期 4, 页码 -

出版社

BMJ PUBLISHING GROUP
DOI: 10.1136/bmjopen-2014-006648

关键词

-

资金

  1. Stroke Association
  2. National Institute for Health Research [NF-SI-0509-10206] Funding Source: researchfish

向作者/读者索取更多资源

Objective: To assess UK governmental and charity research funding in 2012 for cancer, coronary heart disease (CHD), dementia and stroke, and to make comparisons with 2008 levels. Design: Analysis of research expenditure. Setting: United Kingdom. Main outcome measures: We identified UK governmental agencies and charities providing health research funding to determine the 2012 levels of funding for cancer, CHD, dementia and stroke. Levels of research funding were compared to burden of disease measures, including prevalence, disability adjusted life years and economic burden. Results: The combined research funding into cancer, CHD, dementia and stroke by governmental and charity organisations in 2012 was 856 pound million, of which 544 pound million (64%) was devoted to cancer, 166 pound million (19%) to CHD, 90 pound million (11%) to dementia and 56 pound million (7%) to stroke. For every 10 pound of health and social care costs attributable to each disease, cancer received 1.08 pound in research funding, CHD 0.65 pound, stroke 0.19 pound and dementia 0.08 pound. A considerable shift in the distribution of government research funding was observed between 2008 and 2012. In 2008, 66% of governmental research funding into the four conditions under study was devoted to cancer, 21% to CHD, 9% to dementia and 4% to stroke. In 2012, the proportions devoted to dementia and stroke had increased to 21% and 12%, respectively, with cancer accounting for 45% of total research spend. Conclusions: Although there has been much progress by government to increase levels of research funding for dementia and stroke, these areas remain underfunded when compared with the burden of disease.

作者

我是这篇论文的作者
点击您的名字以认领此论文并将其添加到您的个人资料中。

评论

主要评分

4.6
评分不足

次要评分

新颖性
-
重要性
-
科学严谨性
-
评价这篇论文

推荐

暂无数据
暂无数据