Exploring Why Global Health Needs Are Unmet by Public Research Efforts: The Potential Influences of Geography, Industry, and Publication Incentives

Background: It has been well established that research is not addressing health needs in a balanced way — much more research is conducted on diseases with more burden in high-income countries than on those with more burden in lower-income countries. In this study, we explore whether these imbalances persist and inquire about the possible influence of three factors, namely geography, industry and publication incentives. Methods: We use WHO data on the Global Burden of Disease as a proxy measure of health needs and bibliometric information as a proxy for research efforts. Scientific publications on diseases were collected from MEDLINE using MeSH terms to identify relevant publications. We used Web of Science to collect author affiliations and citation data. We developed a correspondence table between WHO ICD-10 and MeSH descriptors to compare global health needs and research efforts. This correspondence table is available as supplementary material. Results: Research output is heavily concentrated in high-income countries and is mainly focused on their health needs, resulting in a relative lack of attention to diseases in lower income countries. A new finding is that diseases with a similar burden in highand middle-income countries are also under-researched, both globally and in relation to disease burden in highand middle-income countries. Global industrial R&D is found to be very similar to the focus of public research. Diseases more prevalent in high-income countries generate ten-fold more research attention than those in low-income countries. We find no discernible preference towards diseases of high-income countries versus those of low-income countries in the top 25% most prestigious journals. However, in middle-income countries, citation rates are substantially lower for diseases most prevalent in lowand middle-income countries. Conclusions: From a global perspective, the imbalance between research needs and research efforts persists as most of the research effort concentrates on diseases affecting high-income countries. Both pharmaceutical companies and the public sector also tend to focus on diseases with more burden in high-income countries. Our findings indicate that researchers in middle-income countries receive more citations when researching diseases more prevalent in high-income countries, and this may divert the attention of researchers in these countries from diseases more prevalent in their contexts.

[1]  Francis Narin,et al.  Scientific co-operation in Europe and the citation of multinationally authored papers , 1991, Scientometrics.

[2]  D. Vidyasagar,et al.  Global notes: the 10/90 gap disparities in global health research , 2006, Journal of Perinatology.

[3]  Ferrán Catalá López,et al.  [Relationship between research funding in the Spanish National Health System and the burden of disease]. , 2009, Revista espanola de salud publica.

[4]  B. Kirsop,et al.  Towards Open and Equitable Access to Research and Knowledge for Development , 2011, PLoS medicine.

[5]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  Field-Normalized Citation Impact Indicators and the Choice of an Appropriate Counting Method , 2015, ISSI.

[6]  Adriane N. Irwin,et al.  Comparison of the time‐to‐indexing in PubMed between biomedical journals according to impact factor, discipline, and focus , 2017, Research in social & administrative pharmacy : RSAP.

[7]  S. Rijcke,et al.  Bibliometrics: The Leiden Manifesto for research metrics , 2015, Nature.

[8]  Paul Nightingale,et al.  Big Pharma, Little Science? A Bibliometric Perspective on Big Pharma’s R&D Decline , 2012 .

[9]  John-Arne Røttingen,et al.  Are the Norwegian health research investments in line with the disease burden? , 2014, Health Research Policy and Systems.

[10]  Alfredo Yegros,et al.  Is Research Responding to Health Needs? , 2017 .

[11]  Paul Wouters,et al.  Evaluation practices and effects of indicator use : a literature review , 2016 .

[12]  Michael M. Hopkins,et al.  Funding Data from Publication Acknowledgments: Coverage, Uses, and Limitations , 2017, J. Assoc. Inf. Sci. Technol..

[13]  Robert F Terry,et al.  A checklist for health research priority setting: nine common themes of good practice , 2010, Health research policy and systems.

[14]  Judith Sutz,et al.  Academic Evaluation: Universal Instrument? Tool for Development? , 2016 .

[15]  N. Robinson-García,et al.  On the Dominance of Quantitative Evaluation in ‘Peripheral’ Countries: Auditing Research with Technologies of Distance , 2016 .

[16]  Grant Lewison,et al.  Conflicts of interest statements on biomedical papers , 2014, Scientometrics.

[17]  John P. A. Ioannidis,et al.  Attention to Local Health Burden and the Global Disparity of Health Research , 2014, PloS one.

[18]  Joan H. Fujimura,et al.  Constructing `Do-able' Problems in Cancer Research: Articulating Alignment , 1987 .

[19]  E. Nord,et al.  The value of DALY life: problems with ethics and validity of disability adjusted life years. , 2000, Leprosy review.

[20]  G. Norton,et al.  Prioritizing Agricultural Research for Development: Experiences and Lessons , 2009 .

[21]  Tommaso Ciarli,et al.  The Relation Between Research Priorities and Societal Demands: The Case of Rice , 2018, Research Policy.

[22]  A. Salter,et al.  The economic benefits of publicly funded basic research: a critical review , 2001 .

[23]  M. Siegel,et al.  Sponsorship of National Health Organizations by Two Major Soda Companies. , 2017, American journal of preventive medicine.

[24]  C. McCulloch,et al.  NIH Disease Funding Levels and Burden of Disease , 2011, PloS one.

[25]  R. Pielke,et al.  The neglected heart of science policy: reconciling supply of and demand for science , 2007 .

[26]  Vincanne Adams Metrics of the Global Sovereign: Numbers and Stories in Global Health , 2016 .

[27]  C. AbouZahr,et al.  Global estimates of country health indicators: useful, unnecessary, inevitable? , 2017, Global health action.

[28]  Jessica Tran,et al.  Do Sugar-Sweetened Beverages Cause Obesity and Diabetes? Industry and the Manufacture of Scientific Controversy , 2016, Annals of Internal Medicine.

[29]  Matthew L. Wallace,et al.  Institutional shaping of research priorities: A case study on avian influenza , 2018, Research Policy.

[30]  Ryan W Rodriguez,et al.  Delay in indexing articles published in major pharmacy practice journals. , 2014, American journal of health-system pharmacy : AJHP : official journal of the American Society of Health-System Pharmacists.

[31]  Hugo Confraria Developing scientific capacity in the Global South , 2019 .

[32]  Peter Tinnemann,et al.  Poverty-related and neglected diseases – an economic and epidemiological analysis of poverty relatedness and neglect in research and development , 2015, Global health action.

[33]  D. Hicks,et al.  Reception of Spanish sociology by domestic and foreign audiences differs and has consequences for evaluation , 2015 .

[34]  Adèle Paul-Hus,et al.  The journal coverage of Web of Science and Scopus: a comparative analysis , 2015, Scientometrics.

[35]  Mark Taylor,et al.  ISRIA statement: ten-point guidelines for an effective process of research impact assessment , 2018, Health Research Policy and Systems.

[36]  Robert F Terry,et al.  Mapping of available health research and development data: what's there, what's missing, and what role is there for a global observatory? , 2013, The Lancet.

[37]  J. Abraham,et al.  The Neoliberal Regulatory State, Industry Interests, and the Ideological Penetration of Scientific Knowledge , 2012 .

[38]  Monica Gaughan,et al.  Scientific and technical human capital: an alternative model for research evaluation , 2001, Int. J. Technol. Manag..

[39]  Hilde van der Togt,et al.  Publisher's Note , 2003, J. Netw. Comput. Appl..

[40]  Diana Hicks,et al.  How much is a collaboration worth? A calibrated bibliometric model , 1997, Scientometrics.

[41]  David B. Searls,et al.  Can literature analysis identify innovation drivers in drug discovery? , 2009, Nature Reviews Drug Discovery.

[42]  Thed N. van Leeuwen,et al.  Towards a new crown indicator: Some theoretical considerations , 2010, J. Informetrics.

[43]  Jochen Gläser,et al.  Governing Science , 2016, European Journal of Sociology.

[44]  J. Gläser How can governance change research content? Linking science policy studies to the sociology of science , 2019, Handbook on Science and Public Policy.

[45]  Ludo Waltman,et al.  The relationship between publication volume of biomedical research and burden of disease , 2019 .

[46]  S. Anand,et al.  Disability-adjusted life years: a critical review. , 1997, Journal of health economics.

[47]  A. Carter,et al.  A comparison of cancer burden and research spending reveals discrepancies in the distribution of research funding , 2012, BMC Public Health.

[48]  I. Ràfols,et al.  S&T indicators in the wild: Contextualization and participation for responsible metrics , 2018, Research Evaluation.

[49]  Jean-Claude Guédon,et al.  Excellence or quality? Impact of the current competition regime on science and scientific publishing in Latin America and its implications for development , 2014 .

[50]  S. Sismondo,et al.  “You’re not just a paid monkey reading slides”: How key opinion leaders explain and justify their work , 2015 .

[51]  Ismael Rafols,et al.  Why Researchers Publish in Non-Mainstream Journals: Training, Knowledge Bridging and Gap-Filling , 2017 .