ArticleBMC medicine2014
Estimating the returns to UK publicly funded cancer-related research in terms of the net value of improved health outcomes.
Article in BMC medicine, 2014. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 36 papers, 2 of them syntheses that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
36 citing papers in PubMed, 2 syntheses or guidelines pooled it.
- Evaluating cancer research impact: lessons and examples from existing reviews on approaches to research impact assessment.Health research policy and systems · 2021Pooled it
- The impact generated by publicly and charity-funded research in the United Kingdom: a systematic literature review.Health research policy and systems · 2019Pooled it
- Health for all? A cost-utility evaluation of Colombia's policy to enroll Venezuelan migrants (2021-2023).Journal of migration and health · 2025Article
- Can the sustainable development goal 9 support an untreated early childhood caries elimination agenda?BMC oral health · 2024Review
- Quantifying public and private investment in European biopharmaceutical research and development.Health affairs scholar · 2024Article
- Rethinking our future: Describing and enhancing the impacts of dissemination and implementation science for cancer prevention and control.Journal of clinical and translational science · 2024Article
- Prioritising and incentivising productivity within indicator-based approaches to Research Impact Assessment: a commentary.Health research policy and systems · 2023Article
- An assessment of the performance of the national health research system in Mauritius.BMC health services research · 2023Review
- Research priorities to reduce the impact of musculoskeletal disorders: a priority setting exercise with the child health and nutrition research initiative method.The Lancet. Rheumatology · 2022Review
- What funders are doing to assess the impact of their investments in health and biomedical research.Health research policy and systems · 2022Review
- An NIH investment in health equity - the economic impact of the Flint Center for Health Equity Solutions.BMC public health · 2021Article
- Transforming the practice of medicine through team science.Health research policy and systems · 2020Article
- From COVID-19 research to vaccine application: why might it take 17 months not 17 years and what are the wider lessons?Health research policy and systems · 2020Article
- Evidencing the impact of cancer trials: insights from the 2014 UK Research Excellence Framework.Trials · 2020Article
- Strengthening and measuring research impact in global health: lessons from applying the FAIT framework.Health research policy and systems · 2019Article
- Reshaping the critical role of surgeons in oncology research.Nature reviews. Clinical oncology · 2019Review
- A macroeconomic assessment of the impact of medical research expenditure: A case study of NIHR Biomedical Research Centres.PloS one · 2019Article
- Understanding the contribution of UK public health research to clinical guidelines: a bibliometric analysis.F1000Research · 2019Article
- Economic returns to medical research funding.BMJ open · 2018Article
- ISRIA statement: ten-point guidelines for an effective process of research impact assessment.Health research policy and systems · 2018Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
6 authors.
Funding
Abstract
backgroundBuilding on an approach developed to assess the economic returns to cardiovascular research, we estimated the economic returns from UK public and charitable funded cancer-related research that arise from the net value of the improved health outcomes.
methodsTo assess these economic returns from cancer-related research in the UK we estimated: 1) public and charitable expenditure on cancer-related research in the UK from 1970 to 2009; 2) net monetary benefit (NMB), that is, the health benefit measured in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) valued in monetary terms (using a base-case value of a QALY of GB£25,000) minus the cost of delivering that benefit, for a prioritised list of interventions from 1991 to 2010; 3) the proportion of NMB attributable to UK research; 4) the elapsed time between research funding and health gain; and 5) the internal rate of return (IRR) from cancer-related research investments on health benefits. We analysed the uncertainties in the IRR estimate using sensitivity analyses to illustrate the effect of some key parameters.
resultsIn 2011/12 prices, total expenditure on cancer-related research from 1970 to 2009 was £15 billion. The NMB of the 5.9 million QALYs gained from the prioritised interventions from 1991 to 2010 was £124 billion. Calculation of the IRR incorporated an estimated elapsed time of 15 years. We related 17% of the annual NMB estimated to be attributable to UK research (for each of the 20 years 1991 to 2010) to 20 years of research investment 15 years earlier (that is, for 1976 to 1995). This produced a best-estimate IRR of 10%, compared with 9% previously estimated for cardiovascular disease research. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated the importance of smoking reduction as a major source of improved cancer-related health outcomes.
conclusionsWe have demonstrated a substantive IRR from net health gain to public and charitable funding of cancer-related research in the UK, and further validated the approach that we originally used in assessing the returns from cardiovascular research. In doing so, we have highlighted a number of weaknesses and key assumptions that need strengthening in further investigations. Nevertheless, these cautious estimates demonstrate that the returns from past cancer research have been substantial, and justify the investments made during the period 1976 to 1995.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.