Maximising the impact of research: the NCCR North-South approach: Fourth NCCR North-South Report on Effectiveness

Interest is growing in the impact that science can have on reducing poverty in the global South. If we understand impact as the “demonstrable contribution that excellent research makes to society and the economy”, the concept encompasses a variety of contributions of research-related knowledge and skills that benefit people and the environment. One reason for the growing interest in impact in this context is research councils’ increasing focus on documenting the social and environmental benefits of science, as indicated by the above quotation from the British research councils. Another reason is that research funding agencies from the private and public sectors are now more interested in social innovations for solving problems on the ground. Research can indeed influence policymakers’ views, policy development, funding patterns, and implementation or practice. This is promising for those who would like to improve – and prove – the influence research can have on policy and practice. It is also of importance for better understanding the intended and unintended effects of research. This report presents the NCCR North-South approach to increasing the impact of development-oriented research. It explains how we can maximise our impact and how we can assess whether our efforts have worked, based on six case studies from around the world. The report is of interest to all researchers who wish to respond to policy and practice from their point of view and who are keen on publicising their evidence. It is also relevant to those who teach how to maximise research impact.

A Research Roadmap for Complementary and Alternative Medicine – What We Need to Know by 2020

Background: The CAMbrella coordination action was funded within the Framework Programme 7. Its aim is to provide a research roadmap for clinical and epidemiological research for complementary and alternative medicine (CAM) that is appropriate for the health needs of European citizens and acceptable to their national research institutes and healthcare providers in both public and private sectors. One major issue in the European research agenda is the demographic change and its impact on health care. Our vision for 2020 is that there is an evidence base that enables European citizens to make informed decisions about CAM, both positive and negative. This roadmap proposes a strategic research agenda for the field of CAM designed to address future European health care challenges. This roadmap is based on the results of CAMbrella’s several work packages, literature reviews and expert discussions including a consensus meeting. Methods: We first conducted a systematic literature review on key issues in clinical and epidemiological research in CAM to identify the general concepts, methods and the strengths and weaknesses of current CAM research. These findings were discussed in a workshop (Castellaro, Italy, September 7–9th 2011) with international CAM experts and strategic and methodological recommendations were defined in order to improve the rigor and relevance of CAM research. These recommendations provide the basis for the research roadmap, which was subsequently discussed in a consensus conference (Järna, Sweden, May 9–11th 2012) with all CAMbrella members and the CAMbrella advisory board. The roadmap was revised after this discussion in CAMbrella Work Package (WP) 7 and finally approved by CAMbrella’s scientific steering committee on September 26th 2012. Results: Our main findings show that CAM is very heterogenous in terms of definitions and legal regulations between the European countries. In addition, citizens’ needs and attitudes towards CAM as well as the use and provision of CAM differ significantly between countries. In terms of research methodology, there was consensus that CAM researchers should make use of all the commonly accepted scientific research methods and employ those with utmost diligence combined in a mixed methods framework. Conclusions: We propose 6 core areas of research that should be investigated to achieve a robust knowledge base and to allow stakeholders to make informed decisions. These are: Research into the prevalence of CAM in Europe: Reviews show that we do not know enough about the circumstances in which CAM is used by Europeans. To enable a common European strategic approach, a clear picture of current use is of the utmost importance. Research into differences regarding citizens’ attitudes and needs towards CAM: Citizens are the driver for CAM utilization. Their needs and views on CAM are a key priority, and their interests must be investigated and addressed in future CAM research. Research into safety of CAM: Safety is a key issue for European citizens. CAM is considered safe, but reliable data is scarce although urgently needed in order to assess the risk and cost-benefit ratio of CAM. Research into the comparative effectiveness of CAM: Everybody needs to know in what situation CAM is a reasonable choice. Therefore, we recommend a clear emphasis on concurrent evaluation of the overall effectiveness of CAM as an additional or alternative treatment strategy in real-world settings. Research into effects of context and meaning: The impact of effects of context and meaning on the outcome of CAM treatments must be investigated; it is likely that they are significant. Research into different models of CAM health care integration: There are different models of CAM being integrated into conventional medicine throughout Europe, each with their respective strengths and limitations. These models should be described and concurrently evaluated; innovative models of CAM provision in health care systems should be one focus for CAM research. We also propose a methodological framework for CAM research. We consider that a framework of mixed methodological approaches is likely to yield the most useful information. In this model, all available research strategies including comparative effectiveness research utilising quantitative and qualitative methods should be considered to enable us to secure the greatest density of knowledge possible. Stakeholders, such as citizens, patients and providers, should be involved in every stage of developing the specific and relevant research questions, study design and the assurance of real-world relevance for the research. Furthermore, structural and sufficient financial support for research into CAM is needed to strengthen CAM research capacity if we wish to understand why it remains so popular within the EU. In order to consider employing CAM as part of the solution to the health care, health creation and self-care challenges we face by 2020, it is vital to obtain a robust picture of CAM use and reliable information about its cost, safety and effectiveness in real-world settings. We need to consider the availability, accessibility and affordability of CAM. We need to engage in research excellence and utilise comparative effectiveness approaches and mixed methods to obtain this data. Our recommendations are both strategic and methodological. They are presented for the consideration of researchers and funders while being designed to answer the important and implicit questions posed by EU citizens currently using CAM in apparently increasing numbers. We propose that the EU actively supports an EUwide strategic approach that facilitates the development of CAM research. This could be achieved in the first instance through funding a European CAM coordinating research office dedicated to foster systematic communication between EU governments, public, charitable and industry funders as well as researchers, citizens and other stakeholders. The aim of this office would be to coordinate research strategy developments and research funding opportunities, as well as to document and disseminate international research activities in this field. With the aim to develop sustainability as second step, a European Centre for CAM should be established that takes over the monitoring and further development of a coordinated research strategy for CAM, as well as it should have funds that can be awarded to foster high quality and robust independent research with a focus on citizens health needs and pan-European collaboration. We wish to establish a solid funding for CAM research to adequately inform health care and health creation decision-making throughout the EU. This centre would ensure that our vision of a common, strategic and scientifically rigorous approach to CAM research becomes our legacy and Europe’s reality. We are confident that our recommendations will serve these essential goals for EU citizens.

The European Hematology Association Roadmap for European Hematology Research: a consensus document

Abstract The European Hematology Association (EHA) Roadmap for European Hematology Research highlights major achievements in diagnosis and treatment of blood disorders and identifies the greatest unmet clinical and scientific needs in those areas to enable better funded, more focused European hematology research. Initiated by the EHA, around 300 experts contributed to the consensus document, which will help European policy makers, research funders, research organizations, researchers, and patient groups make better informed decisions on hematology research. It also aims to raise public awareness of the burden of blood disorders on European society, which purely in economic terms is estimated at Euro 23 billion per year, a level of cost that is not matched in current European hematology research funding. In recent decades, hematology research has improved our fundamental understanding of the biology of blood disorders, and has improved diagnostics and treatments, sometimes in revolutionary ways. This progress highlights the potential of focused basic research programs such as this EHA Roadmap. The EHA Roadmap identifies nine sections in hematology: normal hematopoiesis, malignant lymphoid and myeloid diseases, anemias and related diseases, platelet disorders, blood coagulation and hemostatic disorders, transfusion medicine, infections in hematology, and hematopoietic stem cell transplantation. These sections span 60 smaller groups of diseases or disorders. The EHA Roadmap identifies priorities and needs across the field of hematology, including those to develop targeted therapies based on genomic profiling and chemical biology, to eradicate minimal residual malignant disease, and to develop cellular immunotherapies, combination treatments, gene therapies, hematopoietic stem cell treatments, and treatments that are better tolerated by elderly patients. Received December 15, 2015. Accepted January 27, 2016. Copyright © 2016, Ferrata Storti Foundation

Promoting research-user collaboration: an assessment of funding schemes: Fifth NCCR North-South Report on Effectiveness

Donors increasingly require that the research they fund be of benefit for society and the environment. To this end, researchers addressing complex and uncertain problems should work together with research users. This is not always easy: researchers are expected to collaborate with non-academic partners, but are not funded for the additional work. Collaborative research projects often cannot tap the full potential of user engagement. Therefore, specific institutional and organisational conditions are necessary that foresee or even foster research–user engagement; funding schemes are one possible solution. Right from the start, the NCCR North-South programme introduced Partnership Actions for Mitigating Syndromes of Global Change (PAMS). This evaluation assesses the types of collaboration supported by PAMS, as well as the value of PAMS as a funding scheme for collaboration. It compares PAMS with similar funding schemes of other universities, research programmes, or projects, and contains recommendations.

Source of funding in experimental studies of mobile phone use on health: Update of systematic review

A previous review showed that among 59 studies published in 1995–2005, industry-funded studies were least likely to report effects of controlled exposure to mobile phone radiation on health-related outcomes. We updated literature searches in 2005–2009 and extracted data on funding, conflicts of interest and results. Of 75 additional studies 12% were industry-funded, 44% had public and 19% mixed funding; funding was unclear in 25%. Previous findings were confirmed: industry-sponsored studies were least likely to report results suggesting effects. Interestingly, the proportion of studies indicating effects declined in 1995–2009, regardless of funding source. Source of funding and conflicts of interest are important in this field of research.

The Mountain Research Initiative Reaches Outward and Clombs Upward

Mountain regions provide a multitude of goods and services for much of humanity (Price and Butt 2000; Becker and Bugmann 2001), especially in the realms of water supply, biodiversity, and other ecosystem services (Schimel et al 2002; Körner et al 2005; Viviroli et al 2007; Viviroli et al 2011). However, the future ability of mountain regions to provide goods and services to both highland and lowland residents is seriously threatened by climatic changes, environmental pollution, unsustainable management of natural resources, and serious gaps in understanding of mountain systems (Huber et al 2005). Disciplinary, interdisciplinary, and transdisciplinary research is required to maintain these goods and services in the face of these forces. The global mountain research community, however, has historically operated at a suboptimal level because of insufficient communication across geographic and linguistic barriers, less than desirable coordination of research frameworks, and a lack of funding.

Source of funding and results of studies of health effects of mobile phone use: systematic review of experimental studies

OBJECTIVES: There is concern regarding the possible health effects of cellular telephone use. We examined whether the source of funding of studies of the effects of low-level radiofrequency radiation is associated with the results of studies. We conducted a systematic review of studies of controlled exposure to radiofrequency radiation with health-related outcomes (electroencephalogram, cognitive or cardiovascular function, hormone levels, symptoms, and subjective well-being). DATA SOURCES: We searched EMBASE, Medline, and a specialist database in February 2005 and scrutinized reference lists from relevant publications. DATA EXTRACTION: Data on the source of funding, study design, methodologic quality, and other study characteristics were extracted. The primary outcome was the reporting of at least one statistically significant association between the exposure and a health-related outcome. Data were analyzed using logistic regression models. DATA SYNTHESIS: Of 59 studies, 12 (20%) were funded exclusively by the telecommunications industry, 11 (19%) were funded by public agencies or charities, 14 (24%) had mixed funding (including industry), and in 22 (37%) the source of funding was not reported. Studies funded exclusively by industry reported the largest number of outcomes, but were least likely to report a statistically significant result: The odds ratio was 0.11 (95% confidence interval, 0.02-0.78), compared with studies funded by public agencies or charities. This finding was not materially altered in analyses adjusted for the number of outcomes reported, study quality, and other factors. CONCLUSIONS: The interpretation of results from studies of health effects of radiofrequency radiation should take sponsorship into account.

Publication and non-publication of clinical trials: longitudinal study of applications submitted to a research ethics committee

BACKGROUND: Not all clinical trials are published, which may distort the evidence that is available in the literature. We studied the publication rate of a cohort of clinical trials and identified factors associated with publication and nonpublication of results. METHODS: We analysed the protocols of randomized clinical trials of drug interventions submitted to the research ethics committee of University Hospital (Inselspital) Bern, Switzerland from 1988 to 1998. We identified full articles published up to 2006 by searching the Cochrane CENTRAL database (issue 02/2006) and by contacting investigators. We analyzed factors associated with the publication of trials using descriptive statistics and logistic regression models. RESULTS: 451 study protocols and 375 corresponding articles were analyzed. 233 protocols resulted in at least one publication, a publication rate of 52%. A total of 366 (81%) trials were commercially funded, 47 (10%) had non-commercial funding. 346 trials (77%) were multi-centre studies and 272 of these (79%) were international collaborations. In the adjusted logistic regression model non-commercial funding (Odds Ratio [OR] 2.42, 95% CI 1.14-5.17), multi-centre status (OR 2.09, 95% CI 1.03-4.24), international collaboration (OR 1.87, 95% CI 0.99-3.55) and a sample size above the median of 236 participants (OR 2.04, 95% CI 1.23-3.39) were associated with full publication. CONCLUSIONS: In this cohort of applications to an ethics committee in Switzerland, only about half of clinical drug trials were published. Large multi-centre trials with non-commercial funding were more likely to be published than other trials, but most trials were funded by industry.

Clinical research projects at a German medical faculty: follow-up from ethical approval to publication and citation by others

BACKGROUND: Only data of published study results are available to the scientific community for further use such as informing future research and synthesis of available evidence. If study results are reported selectively, reporting bias and distortion of summarised estimates of effect or harm of treatments can occur. The publication and citation of results of clinical research conducted in Germany was studied. METHODS: The protocols of clinical research projects submitted to the research ethics committee of the University of Freiburg (Germany) in 2000 were analysed. Published full articles in several databases were searched and investigators contacted. Data on study and publication characteristics were extracted from protocols and corresponding publications. RESULTS: 299 study protocols were included. The most frequent study design was randomised controlled trial (141; 47%), followed by uncontrolled studies (61; 20%), laboratory studies (30; 10%) and non-randomised studies (29; 10%). 182 (61%) were multicentre studies including 97 (53%) international collaborations. 152 of 299 (51%) had commercial (co-)funding and 46 (15%) non-commercial funding. 109 of the 225 completed protocols corresponded to at least one full publication (total 210 articles); the publication rate was 48%. 168 of 210 identified publications (80%) were cited in articles indexed in the ISI Web of Science. The median was 11 citations per publication (range 0-1151). CONCLUSIONS: Results of German clinical research projects conducted are largely underreported. Barriers to successful publication need to be identified and appropriate measures taken. Close monitoring of projects until publication and adequate support provided to investigators may help remedy the prevailing underreporting of research.

The Swiss-Austrian Alliance for Mountain Research

Switzerland and Austria are committed to addressing sustainable mountain development in Europe through a joint effort. In June 2013, more than 140 researchers as well as representatives of the 2 countries' funding ministries participated in the “Mountain Days” event in Mittersill, Austria, thereby marking the official launch of the Swiss-Austrian Alliance. The resulting Mittersill Commitment Paper highlights 8 research areas and calls for international cooperation between mountain researchers, institutions, and governments.