↓ Skip to main content

An analysis of discrepancies between United Kingdom cancer research funding and societal burden and a comparison to previous and United States values

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, November 2015
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • Average Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age

Mentioned by

twitter
4 X users

Citations

dimensions_citation
19 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
47 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
An analysis of discrepancies between United Kingdom cancer research funding and societal burden and a comparison to previous and United States values
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, November 2015
DOI 10.1186/s12961-015-0050-7
Pubmed ID
Authors

Ashley J. R. Carter, Beverly Delarosa, Hannah Hur

Abstract

Ideally, the allocation of research funding for each specific type of cancer should be proportional to its societal burden. This burden can be estimated with the metric 'years of life lost' (YLL), which combines overall mortality and age at death. Using United Kingdom data from 2010, we compared research funding from the National Cancer Research Institute to this YLL burden metric for 26 types of cancers in order to identify the discrepancies between cancer research funding allocation and societal burden. We also compared these values to United States data from 2010 and United Kingdom data published in 2005. Our study revealed a number of discrepancies between cancer research funding and burden. Some cancers are funded at levels far higher than their relative burden suggests (testicular, leukaemia, Hodgkin's lymphoma, breast, cervical, ovarian, prostate) while other cancers appear underfunded (gallbladder, lung, nasopharyngeal, intestine, stomach, pancreatic, thyroid, oesophageal, liver, kidney, bladder, and brain/central nervous system). United Kingdom funding patterns over the past decade have generally moved to increase funding to previously underfunded cancers with one notable exception showing a converse trend (breast cancer). The broad relationship between United Kingdom and United States funding patterns is similar with a few exceptions (e.g. leukaemia, Hodgkin's lymphoma, prostate, testicular cancer). There are discrepancies between cancer research funding allocation and societal burden in the United Kingdom. These discrepancies are broadly similar in both the United Kingdom and the United States and, while they appear to be improving, this is not consistent across all types of cancer.

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 47 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
New Zealand 1 2%
Unknown 46 98%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Ph. D. Student 10 21%
Student > Bachelor 7 15%
Student > Master 6 13%
Researcher 5 11%
Student > Doctoral Student 3 6%
Other 4 9%
Unknown 12 26%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 14 30%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 3 6%
Business, Management and Accounting 2 4%
Psychology 2 4%
Nursing and Health Professions 2 4%
Other 9 19%
Unknown 15 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 2. 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 02 January 2022.
All research outputs
#13,901,936
of 23,577,654 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#982
of 1,238 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#137,473
of 286,783 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#26
of 32 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 23,577,654 research outputs across all sources so far. This one is in the 39th percentile – i.e., 39% of other outputs scored the same or lower than it.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,238 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 13.1. This one is in the 18th percentile – i.e., 18% 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 286,783 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 50% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 32 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one is in the 15th percentile – i.e., 15% of its contemporaries scored the same or lower than it.