Priorities and expectations of researchers, funders, patients and the public regarding equity in medical research and funding: results from the PERSPECT qualitative study.

IF 4.5 2区 医学 Q1 PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH
Raksha Ramkumar, William R Betzner, Nora Cristall, Bogna A Drozdowska, Joachim Fladt, Tanaporn Jaroenngarmsamer, Rosalie McDonough, Mayank Goyal, Aravind Ganesh
{"title":"Priorities and expectations of researchers, funders, patients and the public regarding equity in medical research and funding: results from the PERSPECT qualitative study.","authors":"Raksha Ramkumar, William R Betzner, Nora Cristall, Bogna A Drozdowska, Joachim Fladt, Tanaporn Jaroenngarmsamer, Rosalie McDonough, Mayank Goyal, Aravind Ganesh","doi":"10.1186/s12939-025-02458-7","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><strong>Background: </strong>Considerations of equity in funding and conduct of medical research are receiving greater attention. However, perspectives of diverse stakeholder groups on this topic are poorly characterized. Our study aimed to further understand broad stakeholder perspectives and priorities regarding inequities in medical research and funding, including implications for international collaborations with low-and middle-income countries (LMICs).</p><p><strong>Methods: </strong>Participants were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling. We employed a qualitative descriptive methodology embedded in an interpretive grounded theory framework. This approach involved in-depth, semi-structured interviews with researchers, funders, patients, and members of the public. Participants were asked to discuss their perspectives on the current state of equity in medical research and funding. Collected data were analyzed using constant comparison, open-coding, and theme identification to generate a substantive theory.</p><p><strong>Results: </strong>We conducted 41 interviews involving 11 researchers, 10 funders, 10 patients, and 10 members of the public. Participants perceived several inequities within research participation, funding opportunities, topic prioritization, and lack of international collaborations inclusive of LMICs. Potential strategies to address these inequities were also identified. Through participants' perspectives, we developed a central theory that addressing inequities in medical research and funding can promote collaborative spaces and produce greater research impact for society, regardless of demographics, socioeconomic status, and geographical residence. While we gained diverse perspectives from four distinct stakeholder groups, our primary limitation was that participants in our study were predominantly from Canada and the United States.</p><p><strong>Conclusions: </strong>Participants perceived various inequities in the funding and conduct of medical research. Our findings were primarily captured from participants living in Canada and the United States. However, we were able to gain insights of challenges and potential solutions through their diverse perspectives, and we are optimistic that sustaining efforts to mitigate medical research and funding inequities will help accelerate and broaden the societal impact of medical research within and across countries, including in LMICs.</p>","PeriodicalId":13745,"journal":{"name":"International Journal for Equity in Health","volume":"24 1","pages":"90"},"PeriodicalIF":4.5000,"publicationDate":"2025-04-02","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11966847/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"International Journal for Equity in Health","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12939-025-02458-7","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"PUBLIC, ENVIRONMENTAL & OCCUPATIONAL HEALTH","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Background: Considerations of equity in funding and conduct of medical research are receiving greater attention. However, perspectives of diverse stakeholder groups on this topic are poorly characterized. Our study aimed to further understand broad stakeholder perspectives and priorities regarding inequities in medical research and funding, including implications for international collaborations with low-and middle-income countries (LMICs).

Methods: Participants were recruited through purposive and snowball sampling. We employed a qualitative descriptive methodology embedded in an interpretive grounded theory framework. This approach involved in-depth, semi-structured interviews with researchers, funders, patients, and members of the public. Participants were asked to discuss their perspectives on the current state of equity in medical research and funding. Collected data were analyzed using constant comparison, open-coding, and theme identification to generate a substantive theory.

Results: We conducted 41 interviews involving 11 researchers, 10 funders, 10 patients, and 10 members of the public. Participants perceived several inequities within research participation, funding opportunities, topic prioritization, and lack of international collaborations inclusive of LMICs. Potential strategies to address these inequities were also identified. Through participants' perspectives, we developed a central theory that addressing inequities in medical research and funding can promote collaborative spaces and produce greater research impact for society, regardless of demographics, socioeconomic status, and geographical residence. While we gained diverse perspectives from four distinct stakeholder groups, our primary limitation was that participants in our study were predominantly from Canada and the United States.

Conclusions: Participants perceived various inequities in the funding and conduct of medical research. Our findings were primarily captured from participants living in Canada and the United States. However, we were able to gain insights of challenges and potential solutions through their diverse perspectives, and we are optimistic that sustaining efforts to mitigate medical research and funding inequities will help accelerate and broaden the societal impact of medical research within and across countries, including in LMICs.

研究人员、资助者、患者和公众对医学研究和资助公平性的优先事项和期望:来自prospect定性研究的结果。
背景:资助和开展医学研究的公平性问题正受到越来越多的关注。然而,不同利益相关者群体对这一主题的看法却没有得到很好的描述。我们的研究旨在进一步了解广泛的利益相关者对医学研究和资助不平等的看法和优先事项,包括对与低收入和中等收入国家(LMICs)进行国际合作的影响。方法:采用目的抽样和滚雪球抽样的方法进行调查。我们采用了一种定性的描述性方法,嵌入在一个解释性的理论框架中。这种方法包括与研究人员、资助者、患者和公众进行深入、半结构化的访谈。与会者被要求讨论他们对医学研究和供资公平现状的看法。收集到的数据使用持续比较、开放编码和主题识别进行分析,以产生实质性理论。结果:我们进行了41次访谈,涉及11名研究人员、10名资助者、10名患者和10名公众。与会者认为,在研究参与、资助机会、主题优先排序以及缺乏包括中低收入国家在内的国际合作方面存在一些不公平现象。还确定了解决这些不平等现象的潜在战略。通过参与者的观点,我们发展了一个核心理论,即解决医学研究和资助方面的不平等可以促进合作空间,并对社会产生更大的研究影响,而不受人口、社会经济地位和地理居住地的影响。虽然我们从四个不同的利益相关者群体中获得了不同的观点,但我们的主要限制是我们研究的参与者主要来自加拿大和美国。结论:与会者认为在资助和开展医学研究方面存在各种不公平现象。我们的研究结果主要来自居住在加拿大和美国的参与者。然而,我们能够通过他们的不同观点了解挑战和潜在的解决方案,我们乐观地认为,持续努力减轻医学研究和供资不平等现象,将有助于加速和扩大医学研究在国家内部和国家之间(包括中低收入国家)的社会影响。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
CiteScore
7.80
自引率
4.20%
发文量
162
审稿时长
28 weeks
期刊介绍: International Journal for Equity in Health is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal presenting evidence relevant to the search for, and attainment of, equity in health across and within countries. International Journal for Equity in Health aims to improve the understanding of issues that influence the health of populations. This includes the discussion of political, policy-related, economic, social and health services-related influences, particularly with regard to systematic differences in distributions of one or more aspects of health in population groups defined demographically, geographically, or socially.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:481959085
Book学术官方微信