Priorities in research portfolios: exploring the need for upstream research in cardiometabolic and mental health

Citation:

Work data:

ISSN: 1471-5430

Alternate URL:
https://watermark.silverchair.com/scad032.pdf?token=AQECAHi208BE49Ooan9kkhW_Ercy7Dm3ZL_9Cf3qfKAc485ysgAAA04wggNKBgkqhkiG9w0BBwagggM7MIIDNwIBADCCAzAGCSqGSIb3DQEHATAeBglghkgBZQMEAS4wEQQMxoqNXt3IQtaLkgqoAgEQgIIDAaH6UwBzkE-ssbpMkR4ULMgL7vbDqU7iLKeSSCW3zMBrSTvDPyomIYYQal1bMPf7fptB8DUCh9lEpvtqzazJQPhklWC5T56LcMSb3UzMfiak93_eqyMBAsbkC32B9tfo74HsjMmA8sL6iVpdM1ZhBTusnKDS2IzfPe_YwiboEWQ7oG0SwG2CWobjryjuj5nI

Type of work: Article (academic)

Categories:

Science Diffusion, Science Policy

Abstract:

A current issue in mission-oriented research policy is the balance of priorities in research portfolios. In parallel, in health policies, there is a debate on shifting research away from biomedical treatments towards health promotion and well-being. In this study, we examine if research agendas are responsive to these demands in cardiometabolic and mental health. First, we conducted bibliometric analyses which showed that most research remains focused on biomedical and clinical approaches. In contrast, focus groups and interviews suggested that more research is needed upstream, i.e. on broader determinants of health, public health, and health systems. Most experts also saw a need for more intervention-oriented research. Furthermore, comparisons between cardiometabolic and mental health suggested that they require similar upstream knowledge in issues such as health systems, nutrition, labour, or economic conditions. We discuss the reasons for the persistence of current priorities and the implications in the context of funding strategies.

Downloads:

logo of PDF file
Full document:
van de Klippe, W., Yegros-Yegros, A. & Ràfols, I. (2023). “Priorities in research portfolios: exploring the need for upstream research in cardiometabolic and mental health”. In Science and Public Policy, 50 (6), 961–976. Oxford: Oxford University Press.