All Title Author
Keywords Abstract

Publish in OALib Journal
ISSN: 2333-9721
APC: Only $99


Relative Articles

Health  2024 

Unequal Distribution of Innovation Efforts for Neglected Tropical Diseases: The Role of Funding Evaluation Criteria

DOI: 10.4236/health.2024.165034, PP. 490-520

Keywords: Neglected Tropical Diseases, Funding Decision, Evaluation Criteria, Health Research Funding, Research Impact

Full-Text   Cite this paper   Add to My Lib


Background: International research and innovation efforts for neglected tropical diseases have increased in recent decades due to disparities in overall health research funding in relation to global burden of disease. However, within the field of neglected tropical diseases some seem far more neglected than others. In this research the aim is to investigate the distribution of resources and efforts, as well as the mechanisms that underpin funding allocation for neglected tropical diseases. Methodology: A systematic literature review was conducted to establish a comprehensive overview of known indicators for innovation efforts related to a wide range of neglected tropical diseases. Articles were selected based on a subjective evaluation of their relevance, the presence of original data, and the breadth of their scope. This was followed by thirteen in-depth open-ended interviews with representatives of private, public and philanthropic funding organizations, concerning evaluation criteria for funding research proposals. Results: The findings reveal a large difference in the extent to which the individual diseases are neglected with notable differences between absolute and relative efforts. Criteria used in the evaluation of research proposals relate to potential impact, the probability of success and strategic fit. Private organizations prioritize strategic fit and economic impact; philanthropic organizations prioritize short-term societal impact; and public generally prioritize the probability of success by accounting for follow-up funding and involvement of industry. Funding decisions of different types of organizations are highly interrelated. Conclusions: This study shows that the evaluation of funding proposals introduces and retains unequal funding distribution, reinforcing the relative neglect of diseases. Societal impact is the primary rationale for funding but application of it as a funding criterion is associated with significant challenges. Furthermore, current application of evaluation criteria leads to a primary focus on short-term impact. Through current practice, the relatively most neglected diseases will remain so, and a long-term strategy is needed to resolve this.


[1]  World Health Organization (2004) Intensified Control of Neglected Diseases. Report of an International Workshop Berlin December.
[2]  Commission on Health Research and Development (1990) Health Research: Essential Link to Equity in Development.
[3]  Molyneux, D.H., Hotez, P.J. and Fenwick, A. (2005) “Rapid-Impact Interventions”: How a Policy of Integrated Control for Africa’s Neglected Tropical Diseases Could Benefit the Poor. PLOS Medicine, 2, e336.
[4]  Liese, B., Rosenberg, M. and Schratz, A. (2010) Programmes, Partnerships, and Governance for Elimination and Control of Neglected Tropical Diseases. The Lancet, 375, 67-76.
[5]  Mueller-Langer, F. (2013) Neglected Infectious Diseases: Are Push and Pull Incentive Mechanisms Suitable for Promoting Drug Development Research? Health Economics, Policy and Law, 8, 185-208.
[6]  G-FINDER (2019) Neglected Disease Research and Development: Uneven Progress. Policy Cures Research.
[7]  Rockers, P.C., Wirtz, V.J., Umeh, C.A., Swamy, P.M. and Laing, R.O. (2017) Industry-Led Access-to-Medicines Initiatives in Low-and Middle-Income Countries: Strategies and Evidence. Health Affairs, 36, 706-713.
[8]  Hotez, P. and Aksoy, S. (2017) PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases: Ten Years of Progress in Neglected Tropical Disease Control and Elimination ... More or Less. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 11, e0005355.
[9]  Herricks, J.R., Hotez, P.J., Wanga, V., et al. (2017) The Global Burden of Disease Study 2013: What Does It Mean for the NTDs? PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 11, e0005424.
[10]  Access to Medicine Foundation (2018) Access to Medicine Index 2018.
[11]  Shiffman, J. (2006) Donor Funding Priorities for Communicable Disease Control in the Developing World. Health Policy and Planning, 21, 411-420.
[12]  Head, M.G., Fitchett, J.R., Nageshwaran, V., Kumari, N., Hayward, A. and Atun, R. (2016) Research Investments in Global Health: A Systematic Analysis of UK Infectious Disease Research Funding and Global Health Metrics, 1997-2013. eBioMedicine, 3, 180-190.
[13]  Moran, M., Guzman, J., Ropars, A.-L., McDonald, A., Jameson, N., Omune, B., et al. (2009) Neglected Disease Research and Development: How Much Are We Really Spending? PLOS Medicine, 6, e1000030.
[14]  Viergever, R.F. and Hendriks, T.C. (2016) The 10 Largest Public and Philanthropic Funders of Health Research in the World: What They Fund and How They Distribute Their Funds. Health Research Policy and Systems, 14, Article No. 12.
[15]  Emdin, C.A., Odutayo, A., Hsiao, A.J., et al. (2015) Association between Randomised Trial Evidence and Global Burden of Disease: Cross Sectional Study (Epidemiological Study of Randomized Trials—ESORT). BMJ, 350, h117.
[16]  Stuckler, D., King, L., Robinson, H., et al. (2008) WHO’s Budgetary Allocations and Burden of Disease: A Comparative Analysis. The Lancet, 372, 1563-1569.
[17]  Swingler, G.H., Volmink, J. and Ioannidis, J.P.A. (2003) Number of Published Systematic Reviews and Global Burden of Disease: Database Analysis. BMJ, 327, Article No. 1083.
[18]  McCoy, D., Chand, S. and Sridhar, D. (2009) Global Health Funding: How Much, Where It Comes from and Where It Goes. Health Policy and Planning, 24, 407-417.
[19]  Thomas Falk, M. and Svensson, R. (2020) Evaluation Criteria versus Firm Characteristics as Determinants of Public R&D Funding. Science and Public Policy, 47, 525-535.
[20]  Vanderelst, D. and Speybroeck, N. (2013) Scientometrics Reveals Funding Priorities in Medical Research Policy. Journal of Informetrics, 7, 240-247.
[21]  Chi, Y.-L. and Bump, J.B. (2018) Resource Allocation Processes at Multilateral Organizations Working in Global Health. Health Policy and Planning, 33, i4-i13.
[22]  Cartier, Y., Creatore, M.I., Hoffman, S.J. and Potvin, L. (2018) Priority-Setting in Public Health Research Funding Organizations: An Exploratory Qualitative Study among Five High-Profile Funders. Health Research Policy and Systems, 16, Article No. 53.
[23]  Tuffaha, H.W., Aitken, J., Chambers, S. and Scuffham, P.A. (2019) A Framework to Prioritise Health Research Proposals for Funding: Integrating Value for Money. Applied Health Economics and Health Policy, 17, 761-770.
[24]  Viergever, R.F., Olifson, S., Ghaffar, A. and Terry, R.F. (2010) A Checklist for Health Research Priority Setting: Nine Common Themes of Good Practice. Health Research Policy and Systems, 8, Article No. 36.
[25]  Caines, K. (2014) Global Health Partnerships and Neglected Diseases. DFID Health Resource Centre, London.
[26]  Røttingen, J.-A., Regmi, S., Eide, M., et al. (2013) Mapping of Available Health Research and Development Data: What’s There, What’s Missing, and What Role Is There for a Global Observatory? The Lancet, 382, 1286-1307.
[27]  Falagas, M.E., Pitsouni, E.I., Malietzis, G.A., et al. (2007) Comparison of PubMed, Scopus, Web of Science, and Google Scholar: Strengths and Weaknesses. The FASEB Journal, 22, 338-342.
[28]  Moher, D., Liberati, A., Tetzlaff, J., et al. (2009) Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Reviews and Meta-Analyses: The Prisma Statement. Annals of Internal Medicine, 151, 264-269.
[29]  Adams, J., Gurney, K.A. and Pendlebury, D. (2012) Neglected Tropical Diseases. Global Research Report. Thomson Reuters, Leeds.
[30]  Akinsolu, F.T., de Paiva, V.N., Souza, S.S. and Varga, O. (2017) Patent Landscape of Neglected Tropical Diseases: An Analysis of Worldwide Patent Families. Globalization and Health, 13, Article No. 82.
[31]  Cohen, J., Dibner, M.S. and Wilson, A. (2010) Development of and Access to Products for Neglected Diseases. PLOS ONE, 5, e10610.
[32]  di Procolo, P. and Jommi, C. (2014) Current Pipelines for Neglected Diseases. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 8, e3092.
[33]  G-FINDER (2020) Neglected Disease Research and Development: Where to Now?
[34]  Kappagoda, S. and Ioannidis, J.P. (2012) Neglected Tropical Diseases: Survey and Geometry of Randomised Evidence. BMJ, 345, e6512.
[35]  Trouiller, P., Salmen, R., Myhr, K., Folb, P., Weerasuriya, K. and Gray, A. (2002) The Globalization of Regulatory Requirements and the Development and Availability of Medicinal Products in Developing Countries: Quality, Efficacy and Safety Issues. MSFIDND Working Group.
[36]  Young, R., Bekele, T., Gunn, A., Chapman, N., Chowdhary, V., Corrigan, K., et al. (2018) Developing New Health Technologies for Neglected Diseases: A Pipeline Portfolio Review and Cost Model. Gates Open Research, 2, Article 23.
[37]  Institute for Health Metrics and Evaluation (IHME) (2019) GBD Results Tool: University of Washington.
[38]  Verschuren, P. and Doornewaard, H. (2010) Designing a Research Project. Eleven International Publishing, The Hague.
[39]  Chesbrough, H. and Rosenbloom, R.S. (2002) The Role of the Business Model in Capturing Value from Innovation: Evidence from Xerox Corporation’s Technology Spin-Off Companies. Industrial and Corporate Change, 11, 529-555.
[40]  Baeyens, K., Vanacker, T. and Manigart, S. (2006) Venture Capitalists’ Selection Process: The Case of Biotechnology Proposals. International Journal of Technology Management, 34, 28-46.
[41]  Rasmussen, B. (2010) Innovation and Commercialization in the Biopharmaceutical Industry: Creating and Capturing Value. Edward Elgar Publishing, Cheltenham.
[42]  Moran, M., Ropars, A., Guzman, J. and Garrison, C. (2005) The New Landscape of Neglected Diseases Drug Development. Wellcome Trust.
[43]  Du, S., Bhattacharya, C.B. and Sen, S. (2010) Maximizing Business Returns to Corporate Social Responsibility (CSR): The Role of CSR Communication. International Journal of Management Reviews, 12, 8-19.
[44]  Stiglitz, J.E. and Wallsten, S.J. (1999) Public-Private Technology Partnerships: Promises and Pitfalls. American Behavioral Scientist, 43, 52-73.
[45]  Evans, J.A., Shim, J.M. and Ioannidis, J.P. (2014) Attention to Local Health Burden and the Global Disparity of Health Research. PLOS ONE, 9, e90147.
[46]  Van de Burgwal, L.H.M., Reperant, L.A., Osterhaus, A.D., Iancu, S.C., Pronker, E.S. and Claassen, E. (2016) Self-Centric and Altruistic Unmet Needs for Ebola: Barriers to International Preparedness. Disaster Medicine and Public Health Preparedness, 10, 644-648.
[47]  Feldman, M.P. and Graddy-Reed, A. (2014) Accelerating Commercialization: A New Model of Strategic Foundation Funding. The Journal of Technology Transfer, 39, 503-523.
[48]  Bowen, G.A. (2006) Grounded Theory and Sensitizing Concepts. International Journal of Qualitative Methods, 5, 12-23.
[49]  Blumer, H. (1954) What Is Wrong with Social Theory? American Sociological Review, 19, 3-10.
[50]  Hay, S.I., Abajobir, A.A., Abate, K.H., Abbafati, C., Abbas, K.M., Abd-Allah, F., et al. (2017) Global, Regional, and National Disability-Adjusted Life-Years (DALYs) for 333 Diseases and Injuries and Healthy Life Expectancy (HALE) for 195 Countries and Territories, 1990-2016: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2016. The Lancet, 390, 1260-1344.
[51]  van de Burgwal, L.H.M., Neevel, A.M.G., Pittens, C.A., Osterhaus, A.D., Rupprecht, C.E. and Claassen, E. (2017) Barriers to Innovation in Human Rabies Prophylaxis and Treatment: A Causal Analysis of Insights from Key Opinion Leaders and Literature. Zoonoses Public Health, 64, 599-611.
[52]  Bornmann, L. (2012) Measuring the Societal Impact of Research: Research Is Less and Less Assessed on Scientific Impact Alone—We Should Aim to Quantify the Increasingly Important Contributions of Science to Society. EMBO Reports, 13, 673-676.
[53]  Kamenetzky, A. and Hinrichs-Krapels, S. (2020) How Do Organizations Implement Research Impact Assessment (RIA) Principles and Good Practice? A Narrative Review and Exploratory Study of Four International Research Funding and Administrative Organizations. Health Research Policy and Systems, 18, Article No. 6.
[54]  Holbrook, J.B. and Frodeman, R. (2011) Peer Review and the ex ante Assessment of Societal Impacts. Research Evaluation, 20, 239-246.
[55]  James, S.L., Abate, D., Abate, K.H., Abay, S.M., Abbafati, C., Abbasi, N., et al. (2018) Global, Regional, and National Incidence, Prevalence, and Years Lived with Disability for 354 Diseases and Injuries for 195 Countries and Territories, 1990-2017: A Systematic Analysis for the Global Burden of Disease Study 2017. The Lancet, 392, 1789-1858.
[56]  Neevel, A.M., Urias, E., Claassen, E. and van de Burgwal, L.H. (2020) Quantity vs. Quality: An Assessment of the Current Pipeline for Rabies. Tropical Medicine & International Health, 25, 397-407.
[57]  Pedrique, B., Strub-Wourgaft, N., Some, C., Olliaro, P., Trouiller, P., Ford, N., et al. (2013) The Drug and Vaccine Landscape for Neglected Diseases (2000-11): A Systematic Assessment. The Lancet Global Health, 1, E371-E379.
[58]  Merton, R.K. (1968) The Matthew Effect in Science: The Reward and Communication Systems of Science Are Considered. Science, 159, 56-63.
[59]  Neevel, A.M.G., Hemrika, T., Claassen, E. and van de Burgwal, L.H.M. (2018) A Research Agenda to Reinforce Rabies Control: A Qualitative and Quantitative Prioritization. PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases, 12, e0006387.
[60]  World Health Organization (2017) Control of Neglected Tropical Diseases.
[61]  PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases PLOS Neglected Tropical Diseases Journal Scope.
[62]  Yamey, G., Shäferhoff, M., Moran, M., Diab, M.M., McDade, K.K., Mao, W., et al. (2020) Developing an Argregator Mechanism for Late-Stage Clinical Trials of Neglected Disease Product Candidates. The Center for Policy Impact in Global Health, Duke Global Working Paper Series: Number 23.
[63]  De Backer, K. and Flaig, D. (2017) The Future of Global Value Chains: Business as Usual or “A New Normal”? OECD Science, Technology and Industry Policy Papers 41, OECD Publishing, Paris.


comments powered by Disqus

Contact Us


WhatsApp +8615387084133

WeChat 1538708413