Search

Investigator-initiated clinical studies (IICSs), also referred to as non-commercial, academic or independent clinical studies, address important research questions that are usually neglected by industry despite their high societal value. Indeed, industry may direct their focus and resources on studies that will yield results and products that can ultimately generate revenue for the company. Conversely, IICS research questions include (a) refining or getting new indications of available treatments (drug repurposing); (b) optimisation, by comparing various health products or treatment regimens; and (c) innovation, especially for advanced therapies. Multinational IICSs increase the scientific quality of the data by exchange of research ideas, scientific techniques and tools. Participation of patients from different geographical, social and ethnic backgrounds equally adds to the value of study results and yields more generalisable evidence than a study confined to a single geographical location. Multinational IICSs are generally sponsored by non-profit/academic organisations and publicly funded. Funding has been already identified as a main challenge for the conduct IICS and especially for clinical trials (IICTs, IICS where a medical intervention is directly tested). Main barriers to the conduct of multinational IICTs with public funding include: Limitations of budget and duration of the eligibility of costs Lack of flexibility to move funds transnationally Tendering rules Complexity in the reporting of the eligible costs to funders We describe why there is a need to support multinational IICS, what should be their objectives and what are the current funding mechanisms in Europe. Strategies for funding multinational IICS should evolve to mitigate identified barriers, thus facilitating research that can provide answers to highly relevant questions in healthcare which are less likely to be answered by studies funded by the pharmaceutical and medical device industry., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

Background: Conducting high-quality randomized clinical trials (RCTs) is challenging, time consuming, and resource intense. Academic investigators usually depend on scarce financial resources; however, current literature lacks systematically collected empirical data on the detailed resource use and costs of investigator-initiated RCTs., Methods: The aim of this study is to generate a database of detailed empirical resource use and cost data from 100 investigator-initiated RCTs in Switzerland, Germany, and the UK. Investigators enter their empirical costs data into an online data collection form, which is followed by a short interview and a detailed cost report. We plan to investigate cost patterns and cost drivers and examine planned versus actual RCT costs as well as explore different strata of costs across the planning, conduct, and finalization phases, in drug and non-drug trials, and across medical fields and countries., Discussion: This study will add detailed empirical data to the limited research on investigator-initiated RCT costs currently available. A study limitation will be that cost data will be retrospective and self-reported, which might be inaccurate depending on how costs were recorded., Trial Registration: Open Science Framework (OSF) https://doi.org/10.17605/OSF.IO/QY2GU . Registered on June 4, 2021., (© 2024. The Author(s).)

We use data from 30 countries and find that the more women in a discipline, the lower quality the research in that discipline is evaluated to be and the lower the funding success rate is. This affects men and women, and is robust to age, number of research outputs, and bibliometric measures where such data are available. Our work builds on others' findings that women's work is valued less, regardless of who performs that work., Competing Interests: AJ, FB, LG, AB No competing interests declared, (© 2024, James et al.)

Background: Research into canine health and welfare is supported by Government, charitable and private UK funding organisations. However, there is no current overall visibility or coordination of these funding activities, potentially compromising optimal distribution of limited resources. This study aimed to survey UK canine health and welfare funding by not-for-profit funders between 2012 and 2022, providing a novel baseline analysis to inform future sector stakeholder priorities., Results: Funding data were collected from 10 wide-scope funders (UK Government funding councils and medical charities), 18 animal-directed funders (organisations specifically concerned with animal health and welfare) and 81 breed community groups. These 109 UK funders together provided traceable canine-relevant funding of £57.8 million during the surveyed period, comprising 684 individual grant awards supporting over 500 separate research projects. Wide-scope funders contributed £41.2 million (71.2% of total funding); animal-directed organisations, £16.3 million (28.1% of total funding); and breed-specific groups, £370K (0.6% of total funding). Individual grants ranged from £2.3 million to £300. Funding patterns varied between sectors. Animal-directed funders provided £14.7 million of canine-relevant research funding that foregrounded the dog, 73% of all such funding; wide-scope funders provided £17.5 million of canine-relevant One Health research funding, 97% of all such funding. Customised metrics developed for this study assessed the 'benefit to the dog' and 'pathway to impact' of individual research projects. Overall, studies supported by animal-directed funders achieved significantly higher 'benefit to the dog' scores (Mann-Whitney U = 45235, p<0.001) and 'pathway to impact' scores (Mann-Whitney U = 43506.5, p<0.001) than those supported by wide-scope funders., Conclusion: The landscape of UK not-for-profit funding of canine health and welfare research is complex, with considerable variation between providers. Although wide-scope funders provide the majority of overall canine-relevant research funding, animal-directed funders provide the majority of canine-focused funding and support research with greater direct impact on canine welfare. Visibility of past funding patterns will enable stakeholders in this sector to make more informed decisions about future research., Definitions: To increase clarity, certain words and phrases are used in specific ways within the context of this paper. Animal-directed funders-Charities and other funding organisations whose remit primarily concerns animals or veterinary work Canine-focused research-Investigations where the primary purpose is to advance understandings of canine health and/or welfare Canine-relevant research-All research that is framed as advancing understandings of canine health and/or welfare as a primary or subsidiary purpose Institution-Refers to universities and other centres where research is carried out Organisation-Refers to funding bodies, including research councils, charities and other groups Research grant-A single funding event originating from one or more funders Research project-A cohesive piece of research concerning a particular topic; may involve multiple researchers and/or multiple research grants, in series or in parallel Wide-scope funders-Large organisations whose remit does not primarily concern animals, i.e. (in this dataset) UKRI councils and the Wellcome Trust., Competing Interests: I have read the journal’s policy and the authors of this manuscript have the following competing interests. AMS: previously received grant funding from the Wellcome Trust; various connections (membership, committee service, etc) with The Kennel Club (https://www.thekennelclub.org.uk/ - the parent organisation of KCCT (The Kennel Club Charitable Trust, a funder of this research.) These connections have included travel expenses for attending committee meetings and paid honoraria and expenses for veterinary work at Crufts dog show, which is run by The Kennel Club). RMAP: previously received grant funding from Battersea, BBSRC, Blue Cross, BVA AWF, Dogs Trust, KCCT, RSPCA, RVC ACT, SCAS, and UFAW. DO’N: previously received grant funding from: Battersea, BVA AWF, BSAVA PetSavers, Dogs Trust, KCCT; Petplan Charitable Trust, and The Waltham Foundation. All funders listed also appear in this dataset and thus have been declared as possible competing interests. See additional data sharing information for full details of restrictions on third party data used in this study and for organisation contact details in all cases. This does not alter our adherence to PLOS ONE policies on sharing data and materials., (Copyright: © 2024 Skipper et al. This is an open access article distributed under the terms of the Creative Commons Attribution License, which permits unrestricted use, distribution, and reproduction in any medium, provided the original author and source are credited.)