IDEAS home Printed from https://ideas.repec.org/a/plo/pone00/0114873.html
   My bibliography  Save this article

Using Health Care Utilization and Publication Patterns to Characterize the Research Portfolio and to Plan Future Research Investments

Author

Listed:
  • Luba Katz
  • Rebecca V Fink
  • Samuel R Bozeman
  • Barbara J McNeil

Abstract

Objective: Government funders of biomedical research are under increasing pressure to demonstrate societal benefits of their investments. A number of published studies attempted to correlate research funding levels with the societal burden for various diseases, with mixed results. We examined whether research funded by the Department of Veterans Affairs (VA) is well aligned with current and projected veterans’ health needs. The organizational structure of the VA makes it a particularly suitable setting for examining these questions. Methods: We used the publication patterns and dollar expenditures of VA-funded researchers to characterize the VA research portfolio by disease. We used health care utilization data from the VA for the same diseases to define veterans’ health needs. We then measured the level of correlation between the two and identified disease groups that were under- or over-represented in the research portfolio relative to disease expenditures. Finally, we used historic health care utilization trends combined with demographic projections to identify diseases and conditions that are increasing in costs and/or patient volume and consequently represent potential targets for future research investments. Results: We found a significant correlation between research volume/expenditures and health utilization. Some disease groups were slightly under- or over-represented, but these deviations were relatively small. Diseases and conditions with the increasing utilization trend at the VA included hypertension, hypercholesterolemia, diabetes, hearing loss, sleeping disorders, complications of pregnancy, and several mental disorders. Conclusions: Research investments at the VA are well aligned with veteran health needs. The VA can continue to meet these needs by supporting research on the diseases and conditions with a growing number of patients, costs of care, or both. Our approach can be used by other funders of disease research to characterize their portfolios and to plan research investments.

Suggested Citation

  • Luba Katz & Rebecca V Fink & Samuel R Bozeman & Barbara J McNeil, 2014. "Using Health Care Utilization and Publication Patterns to Characterize the Research Portfolio and to Plan Future Research Investments," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 9(12), pages 1-12, December.
    • Handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0114873
    DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0114873
    as

    Download full text from publisher

    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0114873
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/article/file?id=10.1371/journal.pone.0114873&type=printable
    Download Restriction: no
    File URL: https://libkey.io/10.1371/journal.pone.0114873?utm_source=ideas
    LibKey link: if access is restricted and if your library uses this service, LibKey will redirect you to where you can use your library subscription to access this item
    ---><---

    References listed on IDEAS

    as
    1. Dimitrios Bisias & Andrew W Lo & James F Watkins, 2012. "Estimating the NIH Efficient Frontier," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(5), pages 1-10, May.
    2. Leslie A Gillum & Christopher Gouveia & E Ray Dorsey & Mark Pletcher & Colin D Mathers & Charles E McCulloch & S Claiborne Johnston, 2011. "NIH Disease Funding Levels and Burden of Disease," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 6(2), pages 1-9, February.
    3. Loet Leydesdorff & Stephen Carley & Ismael Rafols, 2013. "Global maps of science based on the new Web-of-Science categories," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 94(2), pages 589-593, February.
    Full references (including those not matched with items on IDEAS)

    Most related items

    These are the items that most often cite the same works as this one and are cited by the same works as this one.
    1. Hyejin Park & Han Woo Park, 2018. "Two-side face of knowledge building using scientometric analysis," Quality & Quantity: International Journal of Methodology, Springer, vol. 52(6), pages 2815-2836, November.
    2. Gibson, Elizabeth & Daim, Tugrul U. & Dabic, Marina, 2019. "Evaluating university industry collaborative research centers," Technological Forecasting and Social Change, Elsevier, vol. 146(C), pages 181-202.
    3. Eduardo Martínez-Martínez & María Luisa Zaragoza & Elmer Solano & Brenda Figueroa & Patricia Zúñiga & Juan P Laclette, 2012. "Health Research Funding in Mexico: The Need for a Long-Term Agenda," PLOS ONE, Public Library of Science, vol. 7(12), pages 1-11, December.
    4. Katia A. Figueroa-Rodríguez & Francisco Hernández-Rosas & Benjamín Figueroa-Sandoval & Joel Velasco-Velasco & Noé Aguilar Rivera, 2019. "What Has Been the Focus of Sugarcane Research? A Bibliometric Overview," IJERPH, MDPI, vol. 16(18), pages 1-15, September.
    5. Thorsten Lammers & Dilek Cetindamar & Maren Borkert, 2021. "A Digital Tale of Two Cities—Observing the Dynamics of the Artificial Intelligence Ecosystems in Berlin and Sydney," Sustainability, MDPI, vol. 13(19), pages 1-19, September.
    6. Yuxian Liu & Ewelina Biskup & Yueqian Wang & Fengfeng Cai & Xiaoyan Zhang, 2020. "A new territory and its pioneer: opening up a dominant research stream for a translational research area," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1213-1228, November.
    7. Weishu Liu & Mengdi Gu & Guangyuan Hu & Chao Li & Huchang Liao & Li Tang & Philip Shapira, 2014. "Profile of developments in biomass-based bioenergy research: a 20-year perspective," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 99(2), pages 507-521, May.
    8. Rahman, A.I.M. Jakaria & Guns, Raf & Rousseau, Ronald & Engels, Tim C.E., 2015. "Is the expertise of evaluation panels congruent with the research interests of the research groups: A quantitative approach based on barycenters," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 9(4), pages 704-721.
    9. Park, Hyunwoo & Lee, Jeongsik (Jay) & Kim, Byung-Cheol, 2015. "Project selection in NIH: A natural experiment from ARRA," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 44(6), pages 1145-1159.
    10. Wolfram, Dietmar & Zhao, Yuehua, 2014. "A comparison of journal similarity across six disciplines using citing discipline analysis," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 8(4), pages 840-853.
    11. Supradeep Dutta & Jenna Rodrigues & Timothy B. Folta, 2023. "Does NIH select the right healthcare ventures through the SBIR grant program?," The Journal of Technology Transfer, Springer, vol. 48(4), pages 1206-1220, August.
    12. Ricardo Arencibia-Jorge & Rosa Lidia Vega-Almeida & José Luis Jiménez-Andrade & Humberto Carrillo-Calvet, 2022. "Evolutionary stages and multidisciplinary nature of artificial intelligence research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 127(9), pages 5139-5158, September.
    13. Xiaozan Lyu & Ping Zhou & Loet Leydesdorff, 2020. "Eco-system mapping of techno-science linkages at the level of scholarly journals and fields," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 124(3), pages 2037-2055, September.
    14. Anna Kiss & Sándor Soós & Andrea Petróczi, 2024. "Impact as equalizer: the demise of gender-related differences in anti-doping research," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 129(7), pages 4071-4108, July.
    15. Guan, Jiancheng & Yan, Yan & Zhang, Jing Jing, 2017. "The impact of collaboration and knowledge networks on citations," Journal of Informetrics, Elsevier, vol. 11(2), pages 407-422.
    16. Giacomo Marzi & Marina Dabić & Tugrul Daim & Edwin Garces, 2017. "Product and process innovation in manufacturing firms: a 30-year bibliometric analysis," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 113(2), pages 673-704, November.
    17. Ciarli, Tommaso & Ràfols, Ismael, 2019. "The relation between research priorities and societal demands: The case of rice," Research Policy, Elsevier, vol. 48(4), pages 949-967.
    18. Zhang, Lin & ZHAO, Wenjing & Liu, Jianhua & Sivertsen, Gunnar & HUANG, Ying, 2020. "Do national funding organizations properly address the diseases with the highest burden? - Observations from China and the UK," SocArXiv ckpf8_v1, Center for Open Science.
    19. Lin Zhang & Wenjing Zhao & Jianhua Liu & Gunnar Sivertsen & Ying Huang, 2020. "Do national funding organizations properly address the diseases with the highest burden?: Observations from China and the UK," Scientometrics, Springer;Akadémiai Kiadó, vol. 125(2), pages 1733-1761, November.
    20. Merigó, José M. & Yang, Jian-Bo, 2017. "A bibliometric analysis of operations research and management science," Omega, Elsevier, vol. 73(C), pages 37-48.

    More about this item

    Statistics

    Access and download statistics

    Corrections

    All material on this site has been provided by the respective publishers and authors. You can help correct errors and omissions. When requesting a correction, please mention this item's handle: RePEc:plo:pone00:0114873. See general information about how to correct material in RePEc.

    If you have authored this item and are not yet registered with RePEc, we encourage you to do it here. This allows to link your profile to this item. It also allows you to accept potential citations to this item that we are uncertain about.

    If CitEc recognized a bibliographic reference but did not link an item in RePEc to it, you can help with this form .

    If you know of missing items citing this one, you can help us creating those links by adding the relevant references in the same way as above, for each refering item. If you are a registered author of this item, you may also want to check the "citations" tab in your RePEc Author Service profile, as there may be some citations waiting for confirmation.

    For technical questions regarding this item, or to correct its authors, title, abstract, bibliographic or download information, contact: plosone (email available below). General contact details of provider: https://journals.plos.org/plosone/ .

    Please note that corrections may take a couple of weeks to filter through the various RePEc services.

    IDEAS is a RePEc service. RePEc uses bibliographic data supplied by the respective publishers.