Evidence map›Paper›PMID 38602177›Full record

ArticleBioethics2024

Accounting for future populations in health research.

Leah Pierson

Abstract read
In one paragraph

Article in Bioethics, 2024. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.

0numbers the graph read from it
0cells of the map it votes in
0citing 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

0 citing papers in PubMed.

No citing paper in PubMed yet.

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

1 author.

Leah PiersonHarvard-MIT MD/PhD Program, Harvard Medical School, Boston, Massachusetts, USA.ORCID 0000-0001-7135-8825

Funding

Medical Scientist Training ProgramT32GM144273 · NIGMS · HARVARD MEDICAL SCHOOL · PI David Shumway Jones, Jacqueline A. Lees · 2022 to 2026
$14.7M
Edmond and Lily Safra Center for EthicsForethought Foundation for Global Priorities ResearchNIGMS NIH HHS T32 GM144273
6 · The paper itself

Abstract

The research we fund today will improve the health of people who will live tomorrow. But future people will not all benefit equally: decisions we make about what research to prioritize will predictably affect when and how much different people benefit from research. Organizations that fund health research should thus fairly account for the health needs of future populations when setting priorities. To this end, some research funders aim to allocate research resources in accordance with disease burden, prioritizing illnesses that cause more morbidity and mortality. In this article, I defend research funders' practice of aligning research funding with disease burden but argue that funders should aim to align research funding with future-rather than present-disease burden. I suggest that research funders should allocate research funding in proportion to aggregated estimates of disease burden over the period when research could plausibly start to yield benefits until indefinitely into the future.

Indexed as

Biomedical ResearchCost of IllnessForecastingHealth PrioritiesHumansResearch Support as TopicResource Allocationdisease burdenhealth policylongtermismpriority settingresource allocation

Identifiers

PMID38602177
PMCPMC12087010

What OpenQuestion holds

Textmetadata
LicenceTDM
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.