↓ Skip to main content

The 10 largest public and philanthropic funders of health research in the world: what they fund and how they distribute their funds

Overview of attention for article published in Health Research Policy and Systems, February 2016
Altmetric Badge

About this Attention Score

  • In the top 5% of all research outputs scored by Altmetric
  • One of the highest-scoring outputs from this source (#6 of 1,405)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age (98th percentile)
  • High Attention Score compared to outputs of the same age and source (95th percentile)

Mentioned by

news
15 news outlets
blogs
5 blogs
policy
1 policy source
twitter
77 X users
facebook
3 Facebook pages
wikipedia
3 Wikipedia pages

Citations

dimensions_citation
132 Dimensions

Readers on

mendeley
222 Mendeley
citeulike
1 CiteULike
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
The 10 largest public and philanthropic funders of health research in the world: what they fund and how they distribute their funds
Published in
Health Research Policy and Systems, February 2016
DOI 10.1186/s12961-015-0074-z
Pubmed ID
Authors

Roderik F. Viergever, Thom C. C. Hendriks

Abstract

Little is known about who the main public and philanthropic funders of health research are globally, what they fund and how they decide what gets funded. This study aims to identify the 10 largest public and philanthropic health research funding organizations in the world, to report on what they fund, and on how they distribute their funds. The world's key health research funding organizations were identified through a search strategy aimed at identifying different types of funding organizations. Organizations were ranked by their reported total annual health research expenditures. For the 10 largest funding organizations, data were collected on (1) funding amounts allocated towards 20 health areas, and (2) schemes employed for distributing funding (intramural/extramural, project/'people'/organizational and targeted/untargeted funding). Data collection consisted of a review of reports and websites and interviews with representatives of funding organizations. Data collection was challenging; data were often not reported or reported using different classification systems. Overall, 55 key health research funding organizations were identified. The 10 largest funding organizations together funded research for $37.1 billion, constituting 40% of all public and philanthropic health research spending globally. The largest funder was the United States National Institutes of Health ($26.1 billion), followed by the European Commission ($3.7 billion), and the United Kingdom Medical Research Council ($1.3 billion). The largest philanthropic funder was the Wellcome Trust ($909.1 million), the largest funder of health research through official development assistance was USAID ($186.4 million), and the largest multilateral funder was the World Health Organization ($135.0 million). Funding distribution mechanisms and funding patterns varied substantially between the 10 largest funders. There is a need for increased transparency about who the main funders of health research are globally, what they fund and how they decide on what gets funded, and for improving the evidence base for various funding models. Data on organizations' funding patterns and funding distribution mechanisms are often not available, and when they are, they are reported using different classification systems. To start increasing transparency in health research funding, we have established www.healthresearchfunders.org that lists health research funding organizations worldwide and their health research expenditures.

X Demographics

X Demographics

The data shown below were collected from the profiles of 77 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 222 Mendeley readers of this research output. Click here to see the associated Mendeley record.

Geographical breakdown

Country Count As %
United Kingdom 4 2%
Colombia 1 <1%
Canada 1 <1%
Unknown 216 97%

Demographic breakdown

Readers by professional status Count As %
Student > Master 32 14%
Researcher 31 14%
Student > Ph. D. Student 29 13%
Other 15 7%
Student > Bachelor 15 7%
Other 45 20%
Unknown 55 25%
Readers by discipline Count As %
Medicine and Dentistry 49 22%
Social Sciences 32 14%
Business, Management and Accounting 12 5%
Nursing and Health Professions 11 5%
Biochemistry, Genetics and Molecular Biology 11 5%
Other 36 16%
Unknown 71 32%
Attention Score in Context

Attention Score in Context

This research output has an Altmetric Attention Score of 199. 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 31 August 2023.
All research outputs
#202,033
of 25,998,826 outputs
Outputs from Health Research Policy and Systems
#6
of 1,405 outputs
Outputs of similar age
#3,407
of 315,747 outputs
Outputs of similar age from Health Research Policy and Systems
#1
of 24 outputs
Altmetric has tracked 25,998,826 research outputs across all sources so far. Compared to these this one has done particularly well and is in the 99th percentile: it's in the top 5% of all research outputs ever tracked by Altmetric.
So far Altmetric has tracked 1,405 research outputs from this source. They typically receive a lot more attention than average, with a mean Attention Score of 12.9. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 99% of its peers.
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 315,747 tracked outputs that were published within six weeks on either side of this one in any source. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 98% of its contemporaries.
We're also able to compare this research output to 24 others from the same source and published within six weeks on either side of this one. This one has done particularly well, scoring higher than 95% of its contemporaries.