Evidence map›Paper›PMID 27724907›Full record

ArticleHealth research policy and systems2016

Global health equity in United Kingdom university research: a landscape of current policies and practices.

Dzintars Gotham, Jonathan Meldrum, Vaitehi Nageshwaran, Christopher Counts, Nina Kumari, Manuel Martin, Ben Beattie, Nathan Post

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Health research policy and systems, 2016. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 9 papers.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
9citing papers in PubMed
–field-weighted citation impact
1 · What the graph read from 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.

2 · The registry

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.

3 · Its place in the literature

Who cites it

9 citing papers in PubMed.

  1. Article
  2. Article
  3. Article
  4. Review
  5. Global health education in U.K. universities.Global health journal (Amsterdam, Netherlands) · 2021
    Article
  6. Review
  7. Article
  8. Article
  9. Article
4 · The record

Corrections and comments

PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.

5 · Who and what money

Authors and funding

8 authors.

Dzintars GothamUniversities Allied for Essential Medicines - Europe, Berlin, Germany. dzintars.gotham11@imperial.ac.uk.
Jonathan MeldrumMedsin UK, London, United Kingdom.
Vaitehi NageshwaranUniversities Allied for Essential Medicines - Europe, Berlin, Germany.
Christopher CountsUniversities Allied for Essential Medicines - Europe, Berlin, Germany.
Nina KumariUniversities Allied for Essential Medicines - Europe, Berlin, Germany.
Manuel MartinUniversities Allied for Essential Medicines - Europe, Berlin, Germany.
Ben BeattieUniversities Allied for Essential Medicines - Europe, Berlin, Germany.
Nathan PostMedsin UK, London, United Kingdom.

Funding

No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.

6 · The paper itself

Abstract

backgroundUniversities are significant contributors to research and technologies in health; however, the health needs of the world's poor are historically neglected in research. Medical discoveries are frequently licensed exclusively to one producer, allowing a monopoly and inequitable pricing. Similarly, research is often published in ways that make it inaccessible. Universities can adopt policies and practices to overcome neglect and ensure equitable access to research and its products.

methodsFor 25 United Kingdom universities, data on health research funding were extracted from the top five United Kingdom funders' databases and coded as research on neglected diseases (NDs) and/or health in low- and lower-middle-income countries (hLLMIC). Data on intellectual property licensing policies and practices and open-access policies were obtained from publicly available sources and by direct contact with universities. Proportions of research articles published as open-access were extracted from PubMed and PubMed Central.

resultsAcross United Kingdom universities, the median proportion of 2011-2014 health research funds attributable to ND research was 2.6% and for hLLMIC it was 1.7%. Overall, 79% of all ND funding and 74% of hLLMIC funding were granted to the top four institutions within each category. Seven institutions had policies to ensure that technologies developed from their research are affordable globally. Mostly, universities licensed their inventions to third parties in a way that confers monopoly rights. Fifteen institutions had an institutional open-access publishing policy; three had an institutional open-access publishing fund. The proportion of health-related articles with full-text versions freely available online ranged from 58% to 100% across universities (2012-2013); 23% of articles also had a creative commons CC-BY license.

conclusionThere is wide variation in the amount of global health research undertaken by United Kingdom universities, with a large proportion of total research funding awarded to a few institutions. To meet a level of research commitment in line with the global burden of disease, most universities should seek to expand their research activity. Most universities do not license their intellectual property in a way that is likely to encourage access in resource-poor settings, and lack policies to do so. The majority of recent research publications are published open-access, but not as gold standard (CC-BY) open-access.

Indexed as

Access to InformationBiomedical ResearchGlobal HealthHealth EquityNeglected DiseasesPolicyUniversitiesBibliometricsBiomedical TechnologyDeveloping CountriesFinancing, OrganizedHumansIncomeIntellectual PropertyLicensureOwnershipGlobal healthIntellectual propertyNeglected diseasesOpen accessResearch fundingUniversity research

Identifiers

PMID27724907
PMCPMC5057402

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceCC BY
Read underepoch 390

Registered trials

None linked

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.