Browsing by Subject "Financing, Organized"

Now showing 1 - 3 of 3
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Funding allocation to surgery in low and middle-income countries: a retrospective analysis of contributions from the USA.
    (BMJ open, 2015-11-09) Gutnik, Lily; Dieleman, Joseph; Dare, Anna J; Ramos, Margarita S; Riviello, Robert; Meara, John G; Yamey, Gavin; Shrime, Mark G
    OBJECTIVE:The funds available for global surgical delivery, capacity building and research are unknown and presumed to be low. Meanwhile, conditions amenable to surgery are estimated to account for nearly 30% of the global burden of disease. We describe funds given to these efforts from the USA, the world's largest donor nation. DESIGN:Retrospective database review. US Agency for International Development (USAID), National Institute of Health (NIH), Foundation Center and registered US charitable organisations were searched for financial data on any organisation giving exclusively to surgical care in low and middle income countries (LMICs). For USAID, NIH and Foundation Center all available data for all years were included. The five recent years of financial data per charitable organisation were included. All nominal dollars were adjusted for inflation by converting to 2014 US dollars. SETTING:USA. PARTICIPANTS:USAID, NIH, Foundation Center, Charitable Organisations. PRIMARY AND SECONDARY OUTCOME MEASURES:Cumulative funds appropriated to global surgery. RESULTS:22 NIH funded projects (totalling $31.3 million) were identified, primarily related to injury and trauma. Six relevant USAID projects were identified-all obstetric fistula care totalling $438 million. A total of $105 million was given to universities and charitable organisations by US foundations for 12 different surgical specialties. 95 US charitable organisations representing 14 specialties totalled revenue of $2.67 billion and expenditure of $2.5 billion. CONCLUSIONS AND RELEVANCE:Current funding flows to surgical care in LMICs are poorly understood. US funding predominantly comes from private charitable organisations, is often narrowly focused and does not always reflect local needs or support capacity building. Improving surgical care, and embedding it within national health systems in LMICs, will likely require greater financial investment. Tracking funds targeting surgery helps to quantify and clarify current investments and funding gaps, ensures resources materialise from promises and promotes transparency within global health financing.
  • No Thumbnail Available
    ItemOpen Access
    Improving the Emergency Care Research Investigator Pipeline: SAEM/ACEP Recommendations.
    (Academic emergency medicine : official journal of the Society for Academic Emergency Medicine, 2015-07) Ranney, Megan L; Limkakeng, Alexander T; Carr, Brendan; Zink, Brian; Kaji, Amy H; ACEP SAEM Research Committees (approved by ACEP-SAEM Board of Directors)
  • Thumbnail Image
    ItemOpen Access
    Selectivity of physiotherapist programs in the United States does not differ by institutional funding source or research activity level.
    (J Educ Eval Health Prof, 2016) Riley, Sean P; Covington, Kyle; Landry, Michel D; McCallum, Christine; Engelhard, Chalee; Cook, Chad E
    PURPOSE: This study aimed to compare selectivity characteristics among institution characteristics to determine differences by institutional funding source (public vs. private) or research activity level (research vs. non-research). METHODS: This study included information provided by the Commission on Accreditation in Physical Therapy Education (CAPTE) and the Federation of State Boards of Physical Therapy. Data were extracted from all students who graduated in 2011 from accredited physical therapy programs in the United States. The public and private designations of the institutions were extracted directly from the classifications from the 'CAPTE annual accreditation report,' and high and low research activity was determined based on Carnegie classifications. The institutions were classified into four groups: public/research intensive, public/non-research intensive, private/research intensive, and private/non-research intensive. Descriptive and comparison analyses with post hoc testing were performed to determine whether there were statistically significant differences among the four groups. RESULTS: Although there were statistically significant baseline grade point average differences among the four categorized groups, there were no significant differences in licensure pass rates or for any of the selectivity variables of interest. CONCLUSION: Selectivity characteristics did not differ by institutional funding source (public vs. private) or research activity level (research vs. non-research). This suggests that the concerns about reduced selectivity among physiotherapy programs, specifically the types that are experiencing the largest proliferation, appear less warranted.