↓ Skip to main content

Determining quantitative targets for public funding of tuberculosis research and development

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, March 2013
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Good Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (66th percentile)
  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
4 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
68 Mendeley
You are seeing a free-to-access but limited selection of the activity Altmetric has collected about this research output. Click here to find out more.
Title
Determining quantitative targets for public funding of tuberculosis research and development
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, March 2013
DOI 10.1186/1478-4505-11-10
Pubmed ID
Authors

David R Walwyn

Abstract

South Africa's expenditure on tuberculosis (TB) research and development (R&D) is insignificant relative to both its disease burden and the expenditure of some comparator countries with a minimal TB incidence. In 2010, the country had the second highest TB incidence rate in the world (796 per 100,000 population), and the third highest number of new TB cases (490,000 or 6% of the global total). Although it has a large TB treatment program (about $588 million per year), TB R&D funding is small both in absolute terms and relative to its total R&D expenditure. Given the risk and the high cost associated with drug discovery R&D, such neglect may make strategic sense. However in this analysis it is shown that TB R&D presents a unique opportunity to the national treasuries of all high-burden countries. Using two separate estimation methods (global justice and return on investment), it is concluded that most countries, including South Africa, are under-investing in TB R&D. Specific investment targets for a range of countries, particularly in areas of applied research, are developed. This work supports the outcome of the World Health Organization's Consultative Expert Working Group on Research and Development: Financing and Coordination, which has called for "a process leading to the negotiation of a binding agreement on R&D relevant to the health needs of developing countries".

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 4 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Mendeley readers

Mendeley readers

The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 68 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 3 4%
Brazil 1 1%
Kenya 1 1%
South Africa 1 1%
United States 1 1%
Unknown 61 90%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 15 22%
Researcher 12 18%
Student > Ph. D. Student 5 7%
Librarian 3 4%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 4%
Other 17 25%
Unknown 13 19%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 18 26%
Agricultural and Biological Sciences 8 12%
Nursing and Health Professions 7 10%
Social Sciences 6 9%
Business, Management and Accounting 4 6%
Other 10 15%
Unknown 15 22%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 4. This is our high-level measure of the quality and quantity of online attention that it has received. This Attention Score, as well as the ranking and number of research outputs shown below, was calculated when the research output was last mentioned on 23 May 2017.
All research outputs
#8,382,974
of 25,330,051 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#941
of 1,378 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#68,038
of 201,700 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#6
of 10 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,330,051 research outputs across all sources so far. This one has received more attention than most of these and is in the 66th percentile.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,378 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.6. This one is in the 31st percentile – i.e., 31% of its peers scored the same or lower than it.
Older research outputs will score higher simply because they've had more time to accumulate mentions. To account for age we can compare this Altmetric Attention Score to the 201,700 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has gotten more attention than average, scoring higher than 66% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 10 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has scored higher than 4 of them.