Please use this identifier to cite or link to this item: http://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/14698
Full metadata record
DC FieldValueLanguage
dc.contributor.authorGlover, M-
dc.contributor.authorBuxton, M-
dc.contributor.authorGuthrie, S-
dc.contributor.authorHanney, S-
dc.contributor.authorPollitt, A-
dc.contributor.authorGrant, J-
dc.date.accessioned2014-06-19T11:19:09Z-
dc.date.accessioned2017-06-07T15:41:52Z-
dc.date.available2014-06-16-
dc.date.available2017-06-07T15:41:52Z-
dc.date.issued2014-
dc.identifier.citationBMC Medicine, 12: pp. 1-21, (2014)en_US
dc.identifier.issn1382-3256-
dc.identifier.urihttp://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/14698-
dc.description.abstractBackground: Building on an approach developed to assess the economic returns to cardiovascular research, we estimated the economic returns from UK public and charitable funded cancer-related research that arise from the net value of the improved health outcomes. Methods: To assess these economic returns from cancer-related research in the UK we estimated: 1) public and charitable expenditure on cancer-related research in the UK from 1970 to 2009; 2) net monetary benefit (NMB), that is, the health benefit measured in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) valued in monetary terms (using a base-case value of a QALY of GB£25,000) minus the cost of delivering that benefit, for a prioritised list of interventions from 1991 to 2010; 3) the proportion of NMB attributable to UK research; 4) the elapsed time between research funding and health gain; and 5) the internal rate of return (IRR) from cancer-related research investments on health benefits. We analysed the uncertainties in the IRR estimate using sensitivity analyses to illustrate the effect of some key parameters. Results: In 2011/12 prices, total expenditure on cancer-related research from 1970 to 2009 was £15 billion. The NMB of the 5.9 million QALYs gained from the prioritised interventions from 1991 to 2010 was £124 billion. Calculation of the IRR incorporated an estimated elapsed time of 15 years. We related 17% of the annual NMB estimated to be attributable to UK research (for each of the 20 years 1991 to 2010) to 20 years of research investment 15 years earlier (that is, for 1976 to 1995). This produced a best-estimate IRR of 10%, compared with 9% previously estimated for cardiovascular disease research. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated the importance of smoking reduction as a major source of improved cancer-related health outcomes. Conclusions: We have demonstrated a substantive IRR from net health gain to public and charitable funding of cancer-related research in the UK, and further validated the approach that we originally used in assessing the returns from cardiovascular research. In doing so, we have highlighted a number of weaknesses and key assumptions that need strengthening in further investigations. Nevertheless, these cautious estimates demonstrate that the returns from past cancer research have been substantial, and justify the investments made during the period 1976 to 1995.en_US
dc.description.sponsorshipWe are grateful for financial support from the Wellcome Trust, Cancer Research UK, the National Institute of Health Research, and the Academy of Medical Sciences. The funders had no influence on the study design, data collection or analysis, decision to publish, or preparation of the manuscript. Through membership of the Steering Group, the funders did provide ongoing suggestions and advice throughout the study, and reviewed the manuscript. We thank the members of the Steering Group for their advice and support, particularly Liz Allen for chairing, along with David Cox, Aoife Regan, Emma Greenwood and Rachel Quinn; Rodrigo Costas and Thed van Leeuwen (CWTS, Leiden) for providing bibliometric analysis; Thomas White at the NCRI for providing us with funding data and reviewing our analysis; and colleagues in our respective organisations for their help in a variety of ways including Steven Wooding for reviewing an earlier draft. We especially extend our thanks to all the cancer experts that we consulted at various stages of the project, particularly: Peter Selby, Mike Richards, Stan Kaye, Georgios Lyratzopoulos, David Dearnaley, Galina Velikova, and Tim Maughan. Needless to say, we are responsible for any errors, misrepresentations, or inaccuracies.en_US
dc.language.isoenen_US
dc.publisherBioMed Centralen_US
dc.relation.replaceshttp://bura.brunel.ac.uk/handle/2438/8573-
dc.relation.replaces2438/8573-
dc.subjectMedical research investmenten_US
dc.subjectQALYsen_US
dc.subjectCanceren_US
dc.subjectMedical research charitiesen_US
dc.subjectValue of healthen_US
dc.subjectRate of returnen_US
dc.subjectTime lagsen_US
dc.subjectResearch paybacken_US
dc.titleEstimating the returns to UK publicly funded cancer-related research in terms of the net value of improved health outcomesen_US
dc.typeArticleen_US
dc.identifier.doihttp://dx.doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-12-99-
dc.relation.isPartOfBMC Medicine-
pubs.volume12-
Appears in Collections:Health Economics Research Group (HERG)
Dept of Life Sciences Research Papers

Files in This Item:
File Description SizeFormat 
FullText.pdf2.11 MBAdobe PDFView/Open


Items in BURA are protected by copyright, with all rights reserved, unless otherwise indicated.