The cost of sponsored research at institutions of higher learning in low- and middle-income countries: a cross-sectional study
Kulanga, A.; Kapanda, G. E.; Bartlett, J. A.; Muiruri, C.; de Jong, S.
Show abstract
IntroductionResearch in low- and middle-income countries (LMICs) is challenged with poor investment by both in-country governments and philanthropies. Although research grants cover costs directly associated with specific research projects, they do not fully cover costs that are indirectly attributable to specific projects. The relationship between grant funding and actual cost of paying for such projects at institutions of higher learning (IHL) in LMICs is poorly understood. Our purpose was to evaluate unaccounted costs associated with grants and explore the system level factors that support or hinder the goal of "breaking even". Materials and methodsWe used a descriptive retrospective cross-sectional design to evaluate unaccounted costs and qualitative interviews with stakeholders at three prominent medical universities in Tanzania. Data were obtained from annual audited Final Reports and Final Financial Reports for biomedical and social and behavioral sciences (non-biomedical) sponsored projects funded from 2007 through 2017. FindingsA total of 17 projects were included in the study, of which 6 (35.3%) were biomedical and 11 (64.7%) non-biomedical. The median total amount of project funding for all biomedical research projects was US$ 544,084; interquartile range (IQR) [89,268-1,226,570]. These projects had median unaccounted costs of US$ 186,403 (IQR) [30,583- 420,223]. The median funding for non-biomedical sponsored research projects was US$ 902,999 (IQR) [468,259-1,951,212] and unaccounted costs were US$ 112,875 (IQR) [58,532-243,902]. 27 faculty and staff at study sites participated in interviews. Three themes emerged-costing practices, unaccounted-for costs, and budget negotiating power. ConclusionThe study demonstrated that there was a substantial amount of unaccounted-for costs for sponsored projects. Costing and financial practices associated with sponsored research projects were weak, coupled with lopsided negotiating power with funding agencies. Funding agencies and institutions in this study should work to reduce the inequity in research costs.
Matching journals
The top 3 journals account for 50% of the predicted probability mass.
Similar papers in this journal
- Facilitated transition in HIV drug trial closure: a conceptual model for HIV post-trial care 95%
- Process of Use of Evidence Products by Frontline Maternal, Newborn and Child Health Staff at the Facility Level in Ghana. 95%
- Using Stakeholder Insights to Enhance Engagement in PhD Professional Development 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Factors affecting trust in clinical trials conduct: Views of stakeholders from a qualitative study in Ghana 96%
- The cascading impacts of attacks on health in Syria: A qualitative study of health system and community impacts 95%
- An emerging TIMER-2C framework for addressing barriers to research culture and productivity among local healthcare providers in the Middle East and sub-Saharan Africa: a qualitative study and modified Delphi approach 95%
Similar papers in this journal
- Conceptualizing centers of excellence: A global evidence 95%
- How can rural community-engaged health services planning affect sustainable health care system changes? - A process description and qualitative analysis of data from the Rural Coordination Centre of British Columbia’s Rural Site Visits Project 95%
- Synthesizing evidence regarding community-based volunteer facilitated programs supporting integrated care transitions from hospital to home: A scoping review protocol 94%
Similar papers in this journal
- Following the science? Views from scientists on government advisory boards during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative interview study in five European countries 94%
- The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on health service utilisation in Sierra Leone 94%
- How to incentivise doctor attendance in Bangladesh: a latent class analysis of a discrete choice experiment 93%
"Similar papers" are the closest papers from that journal in the model's embedding space. They show what the match is built on, but the ranking comes mostly from a classifier over the whole training set, not from these examples alone.