Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S.
Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S.
Research Support, Non-U.S. Gov't
Research Support, U.S. Government
Research Support, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act
Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural
Research Support, N.I.H., Intramural
Research
United States
Research Design
Ethics, Research
Nursing Research
Health Services Research
Follow-up of American Cancer Society Special Postdoctoral Research Fellowship recipients. (1/1000)
A follow-up study of the 44 recipients of American Cancer Society, Inc., Special Postdoctoral Research Fellowship from 1962 to 1973 revealed that 11 of 21 M.D. candidates obtained their second (Ph.D.) degree at the end of training. By contrast, all but one among the 23 Ph.D. candidates were awarded the second (M.D.) degree. A great majority of either group remain in active research, regardless of whether or not they obtained the second degree. A very high percentage of their research is cancer related. (+info)General practitioners' continuing education: a review of policies, strategies and effectiveness, and their implications for the future. (2/1000)
BACKGROUND: The accreditation and provision of continuing education for general practitioners (GPs) is set to change with new proposals from the General Medical Council, the Government, and the Chief Medical Officer. AIM: To review the theories, policies, strategies, and effectiveness in GP continuing education in the past 10 years. METHOD: A systematic review of the literature by computerized and manual searches of relevant journals and books. RESULTS: Educational theory suggests that continuing education (CE) should be work-based and use the learner's experiences. Audit can play an important role in determining performance and needs assessment, but at present is largely a separate activity. Educational and professional support, such as through mentors or co-tutors, has been successfully piloted but awaits larger scale evaluation. Most accredited educational events are still the postgraduate centre lecture, and GP Tutors have a variable role in CE management and provision. Controlled trials of CE strategies suggest effectiveness is enhanced by personal feedback and work prompts. Qualitative studies have demonstrated that education plays only a small part in influencing doctors' behavior. CONCLUSION: Maintaining good clinical practice is on many stakeholders' agendas. A variety of methods may be effective in CE, and larger scale trials or evaluations are needed. (+info)Health expenditure and finance: who gets what? (3/1000)
The methods used in South Africa's first comprehensive review of health finance and expenditure are outlined. Special measures were adopted to make the process acceptable to all concerned during a period of profound political transition. The estimation of indicators of access to public sector resources for districts sorted by per capita income allowed the health care problems of disadvantaged communities to be highlighted. (+info)Mixed signals: public policy and the future of health care R&D. (4/1000)
The incentives facing health care research and development (R&D) are influenced by the ambiguous signals sent by private and public insurance decisions affecting the use of, and payments for, existing technologies. Increasingly, that uncertainty is exacerbated by confusion over technologies' impact on health care costs, how costs are to be measured, and the social difficulty of determining medical "need" for purposes of insurance coverage. R&D executives appear to believe that "major" advances are more likely to win such coverage and thus to be profitable. The products that result, therefore, may make the current policy dilemma of cost containment versus service restriction more acute rather than less so. If the aim of policy is to cut costs, innovative remedies are necessary. (+info)A process evaluation of the National Cancer Institute's Data-based Intervention Research program: a study of organizational capacity building. (5/1000)
This paper reports on a qualitative process evaluation of the Data-based Intervention Research (DBIR) program, that was funded by the National Cancer Institute (NCI) and operated in 21 states and the District of Columbia. The goal of DBIR was to build a foundation within state health agencies to ensure the translation of cancer control science into practice. NCI's objective reflected the readiness of cancer control research for public health application, the paucity of cancer control activity within public health settings and the recognition that state health agencies could play a critical role in the effective transfer of research results into public health practice. The qualitative process evaluation reported in this paper is based on one case study of four DBIR programs. The present study indicates that the four state health agencies executed the DBIR program with fidelity. Also, the four states offered a balanced assessment of NCI's role in enabling the state agency operation of DBIR, providing numerous citations illustrating how NCI successfully facilitated organizational capacity as compared to fewer mentions of ways NCI was less than successful. Thus, in funding the DBIR model, NCI was successful in raising state health agency capacity to implement cancer prevention and control programming. Implications for capacity building in state health departments are discussed. (+info)The impact of the National Cancer Institute's Data-based Intervention Research program on state health agencies. (6/1000)
To assist state health agencies adopt a new role in cancer prevention and control, the National Cancer Institute (NCI) initiated the Data-based Intervention Research (DBIR) program. The goal of DBIR was to stimulate data-driven activities and to build capacity for ongoing programs within state health agencies to ensure the translation of cancer prevention and control science into practice across the US. Each state funded under the DBIR program was required to conduct four phases of activity: identifying and analyzing relevant data, using these data to develop a state cancer control plan, and implementing and evaluating prevention and control interventions at the local level. This paper presents the results of survey of the 22 states that participated in the DBIR program. The survey is intended as a supplement to the case study also reported in this issue of Health Education Research. Results indicated that states were able to implement the DBIR model and they show the process to be useful to their cancer prevention efforts. DBIR had a major impact on how states will use data in future planning for cancer prevention and control. States had a number of recommendations for how NCI could improve its working relationships with state health agencies. (+info)A new method of developing expert consensus practice guidelines. (7/1000)
To improve the quality of medical care while reducing costs, it is necessary to standardize best practice habits at the most crucial clinical decision points. Because many pertinent questions encountered in everyday practice are not well answered by the available research, expert consensus is a valuable bridge between clinical research and clinical practice. Previous methods of developing expert consensus have been limited by their relative lack of quantification, specificity, representativeness, and implementation. This article describes a new method of developing, documenting, and disseminating expert consensus guidelines that meets these concerns. This method has already been applied to four disorders in psychiatry and could be equally useful for other medical conditions. Leading clinical researchers studying a given disorder complete a survey soliciting their opinions on its most important disease management questions that are not covered well by definitive research. The survey response rates among the experts for the four different psychiatric disorders have each exceeded 85%. The views of the clinical researchers are validated by surveying separately a large group of practicing clinicians to ensure that the guideline recommendations are widely generalizable. All of the suggestions made in the guideline are derived from, and referenced to, the experts' survey responses using criteria that were established a priori for defining first-, second-, and third-line choices. Analysis of survey results suggests that this method of quantifying expert responses achieves a high level of reliability and reproducibility. This survey method is probably the best available means for standardizing practice for decisions points not well covered by research. (+info)Gastroenterology research in the United Kingdom: funding sources and impact. (8/1000)
AIMS: To determine the sources of founding for UK gastroenterology research papers and the relative impact of papers funded by different groups and of unfunded ones. METHODS: UK gastroenterology papers from 1988-94 were selectively retrieved from the Science Citation Index by means of a specially constructed filter based on their title keywords and journal names. They were looked up in libraries to determine their funding sources and these, together with their numbers of authors, numbers of addresses, and research category (clinical/basic) were considered as input parameters to the research. Output parameters analysed were mean journal impact category, citation counts by papers, and the frequency of citation by a US patient. RESULTS: Gastroenterology papers comprise about 7% of all UK biomedical research and 46% of them have no acknowledged funding source. One quarter of the papers acknowledged government support, and a similar fraction a private, non-profit source; 11% were funded by the pharmaceutical industry. The papers acknowledging funding had significantly more impact than the others on all three measures. The citing patents had six times more UK inventors than the average for all US Patent and Trademark Office patents in the relevant classes and were mostly generic in application. CONCLUSION: The variation in impact of papers funded by different sources can mostly be explained by a simple model based on the input factors (numbers of funding bodies, numbers of authors, numbers of addresses, and research type). The national science base in gastroenterology is important for the underpinning of UK invented patents citing to it. (+info)"Research Support, U.S. Gov't, Non-P.H.S." is not a medical condition or diagnosis. Instead, it refers to a source of research funding from the United States Government, outside of the Public Health Service (PHS).
The National Library of Medicine's (NLM) controlled vocabulary thesaurus, MeSH (Medical Subject Headings), uses this term as a way to categorize and index biomedical literature. Specifically, it is used to describe research that has been supported by funds from the U.S. Government, but not through the PHS, which is a division of the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS).
Therefore, if you encounter this term in a medical paper or journal article, it indicates that the research was funded by the U.S. Government, but not specifically by the Public Health Service.
"Research Support, U.S. Gov't, P.H.S." is a grant category used in scientific research publications to denote funding support received from the U.S. Department of Health and Human Services (HHS), specifically from its agency, the Public Health Service (PHS). This type of funding indicates that the research was supported by grants or awards issued by the PHS, which may include organizations such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention (CDC), or other HHS agencies. The support could be in the form of financial assistance, resources, or facilities provided to conduct the research project. It is essential to disclose this information to promote transparency and manage potential conflicts of interest in scientific research.
"Research Support, Non-U.S. Government" is a standard designation used in biomedical research funding and publication metadata to describe financial or material support for research that comes from sources outside of the United States government. This can include funding or resources provided by non-governmental organizations (NGOs), universities, hospitals, foundations, corporations, or other entities based in another country.
It's important to note that this designation is used to help readers understand any potential conflicts of interest or biases that may be associated with the funding source, and to ensure transparency in research reporting.
"Research Support, U.S. Government" is not a medical condition or term. It is a classification code used in research funding and publication metrics. This code is used to categorize research that has received financial support from the U.S. government, typically through agencies such as the National Institutes of Health (NIH), National Science Foundation (NSF), or Department of Defense (DOD).
This classification helps identify the source of funding for a research project and acknowledges the role of the U.S. government in supporting scientific investigation. It does not have any direct medical relevance but is important for transparency and accountability in research funding.
"Research Support, American Recovery and Reinvestment Act" is not a medical term or concept in and of itself. However, the American Recovery and Reinvestment Act (ARRA) of 2
"Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural" is not a medical condition or diagnosis. Instead, it refers to a type of funding support provided by the National Institutes of Health (NIH) in the United States.
The NIH is the primary agency of the U.S. government responsible for biomedical and public health research. It supports both intramural and extramural research. Intramural research refers to projects conducted within the NIH's own laboratories and research facilities, while extramural research refers to projects supported by NIH funding but carried out at universities, medical schools, hospitals, and other research institutions outside of the NIH.
"Research Support, N.I.H., Extramural" specifically refers to financial support provided by the NIH to extramural researchers through various grant mechanisms, such as research project grants (R01), small research grants (R03), and career development awards (K-awards). These grants enable investigators to conduct independent research projects that address important biomedical and public health questions, with the goal of advancing knowledge and improving human health.
"Research Support, N.I.H., Intramural" is a grant category used by the U.S. National Institutes of Health (NIH) to describe funding that supports research projects conducted by investigators within the NIH's own intramural research program. The NIH intramural research program is the internal research program carried out by the NIH's own scientists and staff at its campuses across the country. This funding mechanism supports a wide range of biomedical research projects conducted by NIH investigators, and it does not involve the awarding of funds to external researchers or institutions.
"Research Support as Topic" is not a specific medical term or diagnosis. However, in the context of medical literature and research, "research support" refers to the resources, funding, and infrastructure that enable and facilitate the conduct of scientific research. This can include financial support from various sources such as government agencies, private organizations, or institutions; access to laboratory facilities, equipment, and databases; and technical assistance in study design, data collection and analysis, and manuscript preparation.
When "research support" is designated as a topic in medical literature, it typically refers to articles that discuss the various aspects of research funding, ethics, and management, including best practices for grant writing, financial conflict of interest disclosures, and responsible conduct of research. It may also include studies that examine the impact of research support on the quality, quantity, and outcomes of scientific research.
Research, in the context of medicine, is a systematic and rigorous process of collecting, analyzing, and interpreting information in order to increase our understanding, develop new knowledge, or evaluate current practices and interventions. It can involve various methodologies such as observational studies, experiments, surveys, or literature reviews. The goal of medical research is to advance health care by identifying new treatments, improving diagnostic techniques, and developing prevention strategies. Medical research is typically conducted by teams of researchers including clinicians, scientists, and other healthcare professionals. It is subject to ethical guidelines and regulations to ensure that it is conducted responsibly and with the best interests of patients in mind.
I'm sorry for any confusion, but "United States" is a geopolitical entity, specifically the name of the country consisting of 50 states, and it is not a medical term or concept. Therefore, I can't provide a medical definition for it. If you have any questions related to health, medicine, or biology, I would be happy to try to help answer those!
A research design in medical or healthcare research is a systematic plan that guides the execution and reporting of research to address a specific research question or objective. It outlines the overall strategy for collecting, analyzing, and interpreting data to draw valid conclusions. The design includes details about the type of study (e.g., experimental, observational), sampling methods, data collection techniques, data analysis approaches, and any potential sources of bias or confounding that need to be controlled for. A well-defined research design helps ensure that the results are reliable, generalizable, and relevant to the research question, ultimately contributing to evidence-based practice in medicine and healthcare.
Research ethics refers to the principles and guidelines that govern the conduct of research involving human participants or animals. The overarching goal of research ethics is to ensure that research is conducted in a way that respects the autonomy, dignity, and well-being of all those involved. Research ethics are designed to prevent harm, promote fairness, and maintain trust between researchers and study participants.
Some key principles of research ethics include:
1. Respect for Persons: This means treating all individuals with respect and dignity, and recognizing their autonomy and right to make informed decisions about participating in research.
2. Beneficence: Researchers have a duty to maximize the benefits of research while minimizing potential harms.
3. Justice: Research should be conducted fairly, without discrimination or bias, and should benefit all those who are affected by it.
4. Confidentiality: Researchers must protect the privacy and confidentiality of study participants, including their personal information and data.
5. Informed Consent: Participants must give their voluntary and informed consent to participate in research, after being fully informed about the nature of the study, its risks and benefits, and their rights as a participant.
Research ethics are typically overseen by institutional review boards (IRBs) or research ethics committees (RECs), which review research proposals and monitor ongoing studies to ensure that they comply with ethical guidelines. Researchers who violate these guidelines may face sanctions, including loss of funding, suspension or revocation of their research privileges, or legal action.
Research personnel, in the context of medical and scientific research, refers to individuals who are involved in the design, conduct, or reporting of research studies. This can include, but is not limited to, principal investigators, co-investigators, research assistants, research coordinators, data managers, biostatisticians, and laboratory technicians. These individuals may have various levels of education, training, and expertise, and their roles and responsibilities will depend on the specific research study and their individual qualifications. It is important for research personnel to adhere to ethical guidelines and regulations in order to ensure the integrity and validity of research findings.
Nursing research is a scientific investigation that systematically studies nursing phenomena and related outcomes to establish best practices, improve patient care, and advance the profession of nursing. It utilizes various research methods and theories to address questions and problems relevant to nursing practice, education, administration, and policy-making. The ultimate goal of nursing research is to generate evidence-based knowledge that informs nursing interventions, enhances patient outcomes, and contributes to the development of nursing science.
Health services research (HSR) is a multidisciplinary field of scientific investigation that studies how social factors, financing systems, organizational structures and processes, health technologies, and personal behaviors affect access to healthcare, the quality and cost of care, and ultimately, our health and well-being. The goal of HSR is to inform policy and practice, improve system performance, and enhance the health and well-being of individuals and communities. It involves the use of various research methods, including epidemiology, biostatistics, economics, sociology, management science, political science, and psychology, to answer questions about the healthcare system and how it can be improved.
Examples of HSR topics include:
* Evaluating the effectiveness and cost-effectiveness of different healthcare interventions and technologies
* Studying patient-centered care and patient experiences with the healthcare system
* Examining healthcare workforce issues, such as shortages of primary care providers or the impact of nurse-to-patient ratios on patient outcomes
* Investigating the impact of health insurance design and financing systems on access to care and health disparities
* Analyzing the organization and delivery of healthcare services in different settings, such as hospitals, clinics, and long-term care facilities
* Identifying best practices for improving healthcare quality and safety, reducing medical errors, and eliminating wasteful or unnecessary care.
Translational medical research, also known as "translational research," refers to the process of turning basic scientific discoveries into clinical interventions that improve human health and well-being. This type of research aims to "translate" findings from laboratory, animal, or cellular studies into practical applications for the prevention, diagnosis, and treatment of human diseases.
Translational medical research typically involves a multidisciplinary approach, bringing together researchers from various fields such as biology, chemistry, engineering, genetics, and medicine to work collaboratively on solving complex health problems. The process often includes several stages, including:
1. Identifying basic scientific discoveries that have the potential to be translated into clinical applications.
2. Developing and optimizing new diagnostic tools, drugs, or therapies based on these discoveries.
3. Conducting preclinical studies in the laboratory or with animal models to evaluate the safety and efficacy of these interventions.
4. Designing and implementing clinical trials to test the effectiveness and safety of the new interventions in human patients.
5. Disseminating research findings to the scientific community, healthcare providers, and the public to facilitate the adoption of new practices or treatments.
Translational medical research is essential for bridging the gap between basic scientific discoveries and clinical applications, ultimately improving patient care and outcomes.