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.
X Demographics
Mendeley readers
| Title |
National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme research funding and UK burden of disease
|
|---|---|
| Published in |
Trials, February 2018
|
| DOI | 10.1186/s13063-018-2489-7 |
| Pubmed ID | |
| Authors |
Fay Chinnery, Gemma Bashevoy, Amanda Blatch-Jones, Lisa Douet, Sarah Puddicombe, James Raftery |
| Abstract |
HTA Programme funding is governed by the need for evidence and scientific quality, reflecting funding of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) by the NHS. The need criterion incorporates covering the spectrum of diseases, but also taking account of research supported by other funders. This study compared the NIHR HTA Programme portfolio of research with the UK burden of disease as measured by Disability-adjusted Life Years (DALYs). A retrospective cross-sectional study using a cohort of all funded primary research and evidence syntheses projects received by the HTA Programme from April 2011 to March 2016 (n = 363); to determine the proportion of spend by disease compared with burden of disease in the UK calculated using 2015 UK DALY data. The programme costing just under £44 million broadly reflected UK DALY burden by disease. Spend was lower than disease burden for cancer, cardiovascular and musculoskeletal diseases, which may reflect the importance of other funders, notably medical charities, which concentrate on these diseases. The HTA Programme spend, adjusted for other relevant funders, broadly matches disease burden in the UK; no diseases are being neglected. |
X Demographics
The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 12 X users who shared this research output. Click here to find out more about how the information was compiled.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| United Kingdom | 7 | 58% |
| Unknown | 5 | 42% |
Demographic breakdown
| Type | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Members of the public | 8 | 67% |
| Practitioners (doctors, other healthcare professionals) | 2 | 17% |
| Scientists | 2 | 17% |
Mendeley readers
The data shown below were compiled from readership statistics for 40 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.
Geographical breakdown
| Country | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Unknown | 40 | 100% |
Demographic breakdown
| Readers by professional status | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Student > Master | 8 | 20% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Student > Postgraduate | 4 | 10% |
| Student > Ph. D. Student | 4 | 10% |
| Researcher | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 4 | 10% |
| Unknown | 12 | 30% |
| Readers by discipline | Count | As % |
|---|---|---|
| Medicine and Dentistry | 9 | 23% |
| Economics, Econometrics and Finance | 6 | 15% |
| Nursing and Health Professions | 5 | 13% |
| Business, Management and Accounting | 4 | 10% |
| Pharmacology, Toxicology and Pharmaceutical Science | 3 | 8% |
| Other | 5 | 13% |
| Unknown | 8 | 20% |