Mapping the global
mental health research
funding system
Alexandra Pollitt, Gavin Cochrane, Anne Kirtley, Joachim Krapels,
Vincent Larivière, Catherine Lichten, Sarah Parks, Steven Wooding
For more information on this publication, visit www.rand.org/t/RR1271
For more information on Project Ecosystem: Mapping the global mental health research
funding system, visit www.randeurope.org/mental-health-ecosystem
Published by the RAND Corporation, Santa Monica, Calif., and Cambridge, UK
© Copyright 2016 RAND Corporation
R is a registered trademark.
®
RAND Europe is a not-for-profit research organisation that helps improve policy and decisionmaking through
research and analysis. RAND’s publications do not necessarily reflect the opinions of its research clients and
sponsors.
Limited Print and Electronic Distribution Rights
This document and trademark(s) contained herein are protected by law. This representation of RAND intellectual
property is provided for noncommercial use only. Unauthorized posting of this publication online is prohibited.
Permission is given to duplicate this document for personal use only, as long as it is unaltered and complete.
Permission is required from RAND to reproduce, or reuse in another form, any of its research documents for commercial use. For information on reprint and linking permissions, please visit www.rand.org/pubs/permissions.html.
Support RAND
Make a tax-deductible charitable contribution at
www.rand.org/giving/contribute
www.rand.org
www.randeurope.org
Preface
This study maps the global funding of mental
health research between 2009 and 2014. It builds
from the bottom up a picture of who the major
funders are, what kinds of research they support
and how their strategies relate to one another. It
also looks to the future, considering some of the
areas of focus, challenges and opportunities which
may shape the field in the coming few years. We
hope that developing a shared understanding of
these facets will aid coordination and planning
and assist research funders in targeting their scarce
resources effectively.
This report and the accompanying documents
produced as part of the study are available at
www.randeurope.org/mental-health-ecosystem.
Acknowledgements:
We are grateful to the International Alliance of
Mental Health Research Funders and in particular the members of the Alliance who kindly supported the study: the Graham Boeckh Foundation, Alberta Innovates – Health Solutions, the
Canadian Institutes of Health Research, the UK
National Institute for Health Research, the Wellcome Trust, MQ: Transforming Mental Health,
and the Movember Foundation.
The bibliometric data for the study was provided by the Observatoire des sciences et des tech-
nologies (OST). Eddy Nason contributed to the
Canadian fieldwork and the team at berResearch
contributed useful discussion and suggestions.
We would like to thank those who commented
on earlier drafts of this report (Ian Boeckh and
Danielle Kemmer at the Graham Boeckh Foundation, Cynthia Joyce at MQ and Jonathan Grant
at King’s College London). We very much appreciated the helpful and timely comments of our
quality assurance reviewers (Salil Gunashekar and
Saba Hinrichs). The report was copy-edited by
Mark Hughes and designed by Jessica Plumridge
and Paul Barrett Book Production.
Finally, we are very grateful to all of the organisations who agreed to participate in our deep dive
reviews and the researchers who completed surveys as part of the study.
For more information about RAND Europe or
this document, please contact:
Alexandra Pollitt
RAND Europe
Westbrook Centre
Milton Road
Cambridge CB4 1YG
United Kingdom
Tel. +44 (1223) 353 329
apollitt@rand.org
Table of Contents
Preface . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . iii
Table of Contents . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . v
Figures . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . vi
Tables . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . viii
Headline findings . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . ix
Chapter 1
Introduction and background . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.1. Previous studies aiming to map research funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.2. Our approach, its strengths and its limitations . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1.3. Structure of this report .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 1
2
2
4
Chapter 2
Mapping the mental health research funding landscape . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 2.1.
2.2.
2.3.
2.4.
2.5.
2.6.
How big is the field of mental health research? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . How many mental health research funders are there? .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Who are they? .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Where are they? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . What are they funding? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . How do funders relate to one another? .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 7
7
8
10
14
18
21
Chapter 3
What does the future hold? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.1. Deep dive profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 33
3.2. Views on the future . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 35
Chapter 4
What next? . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 39
References . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 43
Annex 1 – Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 45
Annex 2 – The UK .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
Annex 3 – Funder acronyms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 57
Figures
Study aims and data sources .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Cleaning process of funders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Funders with ten or more acknowledgements .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Number of funders (and respective acknowledgements) by funder type . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Distribution of funders in the government and charity/foundation/non-profit
sectors, by numbers of papers on which they are acknowledged . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Average of relative citations by funder sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . N
umber of government, charity, foundation and non-profit mental health research
funders by country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 2-7 Government funders by country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 2-8 Charity, foundation and non-profit funders by country . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 2-9 Average relative citations by country of funder . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 2-10 Acknowledgements per funder country by R&D expenditure: (i) all countries. (ii)
excluding the United States .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 2-11 Papers in complete data set with ‘Mental Disorder’ MeSH terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 2-12 Coxcomb plot of papers with acknowledgement data and Mental Disorder
MeSH terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 2-13 Funding acknowledgements by sector for each group of MeSH terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 2-14 Research level of papers by year . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 2-15 Research level of papers by funder sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 2-16 Network of co-acknowledged funders in the entire mental health data set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 2-17 Network of co-acknowledged funders – neurodegenerative and cognition
disorders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 2-18 Network of co-acknowledged funders – depressive, anxiety and personality
disorders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 2-19 Network of co-acknowledged funders – substance use and addictive disorders . . . . . . . . . Figure 2-20 Network of co-acknowledged funders – neurodevelopmental disorders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 2-21 Network of co-acknowledged funders – schizophrenia, bipolar and other psychotic
disorders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 2-22 Network of co-acknowledged funders – “Adolescent”, “Child”, “infant” and
“young adult” categories in MeSH . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 2-23 Network of co-acknowledged funders – “Aged” and “middle aged” categories in
MeSH .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure A1-1 Breakdown of number of Canadian funders and funding acknowledgements by
funder sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure A1-2 Average relative citations by funder sector - Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure A1-3 Network of co-acknowledgement of all Canadian funders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure A1-4 Network of co-acknowledged funders on Canadian papers in the entire mental
health data set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure A1-5 Flows of research funding: (i) Canadian funders supporting papers with
corresponding authors outside Canada and (ii) papers with Canadian corresponding
authors acknowledging non-Canadian funding .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure 1-1 Figure 2-1 Figure 2-2 Figure 2-3 Figure 2-4 Figure 2-5 Figure 2-6 3
8
9
10
12
13
15
15
16
16
17
18
19
19
20
21
24
26
27
28
29
30
31
32
45
46
48
49
50
Figure A2-1 Breakdown of number of UK funders and funding acknowledgement by funder
sector . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure A2-2 Average relative citations by funder sector - UK . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure A2-3 Network of co-acknowledgement of all UK funders . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure A2-4 Network of co-acknowledged funders on UK papers in the entire mental health
data set . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Figure A2-5 Flows of research funding: (i) UK funders supporting papers with corresponding
authors outside the UK and (ii) papers with UK corresponding authors
acknowledging non-UK funding . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 51
52
54
55
56
Tables
Table 2-1 Table 2-2 Table 3-1 Table A1-1 Table A2-1 Top 30 most frequently acknowledged funders globally .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . T
op ten most frequently acknowledged funding countries for each group of MeSH
terms . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Funders included in deep dive profiles . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Top 30 funders in Canada . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . Top 30 funders in the UK .. . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . . 11
21
34
46
52
Headline findings
1. The field of mental health research is large (and
growing) and diverse – over 220,000 papers
were published between 2009 and 2014, supported by over 1,900 funders.
2. Many of the funders identified using our
approach would have been unlikely to appear
in a top-down analysis of ‘traditional’ mental
health research funders: we identified small or
relatively new charities and foundations, as well
as larger funders whose primary remit does not
concern mental health.
3. The US dominates the mental health research
field, being both the largest producer of research
(36 per cent of publications) and accounting for
31 per cent of government and charity/foundation/non-profit funding organisations.
4. Charities, foundations and non-profits form the
most numerous group of mental health research
funders (39 per cent of the funders identified), but governments fund the most papers,
accounting for over two-thirds of the papers
with funding acknowledgements.
5. In the mental health field, papers acknowledging the support of charities, foundations
and non-profits tend to have a higher citation
impact than those acknowledging other sectors.
6. The highest concentrations of mental health
research funders are located in North America,
northern and western Europe and China. China
is dominated by government funding agencies,
while some European countries, in particular Finland and Sweden, have relatively higher
numbers of charities and foundations.
7. The mental health papers which focus on a clinical condition cluster into eight groups, with the
most common conditions being neurodegenerative and cognition disorders; depressive, anxiety and personality disorders; and substance
use and addictive disorders.
8. Funder co-acknowledgement on papers tends
to produce national rather than topic-specific
clusters, suggesting that despite increasing
international collaboration, national boundaries
still remain important in mental health research
funding.
9. The majority of mental health research funders
we looked at in depth do not have an explicit
definition for mental health.
10.Funders of mental health research anticipate
future or continuing challenges relating to the
diversity of the field, difficulty in maintaining
funding levels, and the translation of research
into practice.
11.Opportunities identified by mental health
research funders include increasing collaboration, developing shared definitions, capitalising
on government priorities, developing a key role
for non-governmental funders and the advance
of technology.
Chapter 1 Introduction and background
Mental illness has a substantial impact on individuals, healthcare systems and society. Recent estimates suggest that mental and substance use disorders comprise 7.4 per cent of the global burden
of disease and represent the leading global cause of
all non-fatal burden (Whiteford et al., 2013). This
burden is increasing, primarily due to demographic
change, which is also driving a dramatic increase
in neurodegenerative conditions such as dementias and Parkinson’s disease (Murray et al., 2012).
When considering in isolation years lived with disability (YLD), mental health and substance abuse
disorders represent 21.2 per cent of the global total,
with major depression being the leading cause of
YLDs in 56 countries (Vos et al., 2015). Aside
from the impact of mental illness on individuals,
it has been estimated that between 2011 and 2030,
mental disorders could cost the global economy
US$16 trillion in lost output (Bloom et al. 2011).
between 2011 and
2030, mental disorders
could cost the global
economy US$16 trillion
in lost output
For many mental health conditions we have
a poor understanding of the underlying mechanisms and there remains a lack of effective treatments (Insel & Gogtay 2014). Research is needed
to address these challenges. The field of mental
health research is broad and fragmented (e.g. Haro
et al. 2013; Rutter 2002). It covers a diversity of
health conditions, employs a wide array of differ-
ent research approaches and is driven by a large
and varied population of researchers and funding
organisations (as we demonstrate in this report).
In a context where important, complex questions
remain unaddressed and resources are limited, these
characteristics present a significant challenge for
efficiently coordinating and conducting research.
While a number of national or subfield-specific
research mapping exercises have taken place in the
past, there has not yet been, to the best of our
knowledge, a comprehensive review of the entire
mental health research funding ‘ecosystem’ on a
global scale. At a time when research is becoming
increasingly collaborative and international (e.g.
Gazni et al. 2012; Waltman et al. 2011), such an
overview will allow funders to better understand
the context in which they operate and the complementarity of their portfolios, and will enable
researchers to identify opportunities in both their
own fields and related areas.
This study aims to provide a snapshot of the
mental health research funding ecosystem, building from the bottom up a picture of who the major
funders are, what kinds of research they support
and how their strategies relate to one another. We
did this using the funding acknowledgements on
journal papers as a starting point and looked at the
global landscape, as well as specifically at Canada
and the UK (which were of particular interest to
the study’s sponsors and are detailed in Annex 1
and Annex 2, respectively).
It is interesting to note that although ‘funders’ is
a commonly used term, there is considerable diversity in mission and activities. Some funders primarily, or exclusively, award research grants whilst
other funders also control institutes and centres;
some have a single source of funds and others both
raise and dispense money. We have taken a wide
definition of funders – basing it on those organisations that appear in the funding acknowledgements
2
Mapping the global mental health research funding system
of journal articles – and the sample of funders we
have examined in detail reflect that diversity.
Alongside our mapping of the global landscape of funders our study also includes a forwardlooking component, highlighting for the major
funders globally the areas in which they intend to
focus their efforts in the coming years, as well as
the opportunities and challenges they expect to
shape the field.
We hope that by setting out the current landscape and considering the future evolution of the
field, those working in mental health research
will have a more complete picture of the scale and
nature of efforts to address the many unanswered
questions which remain. Developing a shared
understanding of these facets will aid coordination and planning and assist research funders in
targeting their scarce resources effectively.
1.1 Previous studies aiming to
map research funding
While we believe this study to be the first to examine the global funding landscape for the entire
mental health field, previous studies have looked
at specific research areas and countries, in mental
health as well as in other areas of health and biomedical research. Several of these studies use a
‘top-down’ approach, tracking the activities of key
funders in the area of interest (CIHR 2014, Daniels
2012, MBCA 2014, Morgan Jones & Grant 2011,
MQ 2015, Singh et al. 2009). Others apply a ‘bottom-up’ approach similar to that used in the present study, where funding acknowledgements from
relevant papers are used to identify which funders
are active in an area of interest and to characterise
aspects of their support (Dawson 1998, Garau et
al. 2011, NHS Executive 2001, Shah et al. 2014).
These bottom-up studies have focused on mapping National Health Service research in England
(NHS Executive 2001), exploring interactions
among UK biomedical research funders (Garau
et al. 2011 and Shah et al. 2014), and assessing
national trends in biomedical research funding in
the UK (Dawson 1998).
Of particular relevance for mental health
research, UK charity MQ carried out an analysis of
the research funding landscape for mental health in
the UK over the period 2008-2013 (MQ 2015). It
focused on the research portfolios of 11 UK funding bodies. Other studies have focused on autism
research funding in the United States (Singh et
al. 2009, Daniels 2012) and global funding for
metastatic breast cancer (Metastatic Breast Cancer
Alliance 2014). A framework for categorising
Alzheimer’s Disease research has been established,
enabling global tracking of funding through the
International Alzheimer’s Disease Research Portfolio (IADRP) initiative (Liggins et al. 2014).
1.2 Our approach, its strengths
and its limitations
Our approach builds on previous studies, taking
advantage of increasing data availability and
adopting a global perspective in mapping mental
health research funding. Four key questions are
central to achieving this:
• Who are the major mental health research
funders?
• What do they fund?
• How do they relate to one another?
• What opportunities and challenges might the
future hold?
This study aimed to answer these questions using
primarily a bottom-up approach, in that we took
individual journal papers – the outputs of the
research process – as a starting point for defining
the mental health field, identifying funders and
constructing a data set for the subsequent analyses. However, as the systematic use of this kind of
approach in examining the funders of research still
remains relatively unexplored, we complement it
with data from a number of other sources to validate assumptions and emerging findings. These
data sources and how they relate to the study’s
key questions are shown in Figure 1-1. Our primary data source was the funding acknowledgements made by researchers on papers published
between 2009 and 2014. A survey of researchers
was used to explore acknowledgement behaviour
and validate the list of funders obtained from the
acknowledgement analysis. A telephone survey of
the major funders identified in Canada, the UK
and globally provided qualitative data on the level
and nature of funding, current priorities and collaboration activities. Finally, a set of 32 ‘deep dive’
profiles of funders was compiled, looking in depth
at their current practices and future plans. Further detail on the methods for each of these data
sources is provided in Appendix A.
Introduction and background
3
Figure 1-1
Study aims and data sources (dark shading indicates primary data source; light shading indicates
supporting data source)
Data source
Funding
acknowledgements
Identifying major
funders
Researcher
survey
Funder
survey
Other bibliometric
data1
Funder
deep dives
Examining what
they fund
Exploring how
they relate to
one another
Considering
future plans
Why use bibliometric data?
A number of prior studies have explored the
research funding landscape using a top-down
approach (as mentioned previously), identifying
funders and then mapping the areas in which they
operate. While this approach allows for reliable and
detailed analysis of major funders, it also requires
us to know who these funders are from the outset.
In this study we chose a bottom-up approach, generating a list of research funders from bibliometric
data, in the expectation that this would result in
a more complete list of organisations supporting
research in the mental health field and allowing the
relationships between them and the profile of their
funded research to emerge from the data.
Using bibliometric data as the initial basis for
our analysis was made possible by the increasing
availability of systematic information on the funding of papers indexed in the publications database
Web of Science. This data on funding is compiled
from the acknowledgements made by researchers on journal papers. Scientific publications have
long included acknowledgements, whether to
express gratitude for funding, expert advice, technical help or other support provided by individuals or organisations. More recently this practice has
become more formal with an increasing number of
research funders requiring support to be acknowledged in publications. In the past this information
has not been analysable at an aggregate level, but
in 2008 Thomson Reuters began systematically
extracting acknowledgements of research funding,
making this data available in a specific field in the
Web of Science. This database field allows us to
approximate the number of papers attributed to
support from different research funders and thus
sheds light on the global funding landscape of
mental health research.
Using bibliometric funding acknowledgements
as the initial data source for the study has several
important advantages:
• It allows us to draw on a single data source for
the vast majority of our data, helping ensure
consistency.
• The Web of Science consistently covers the
most visible and important journals across
fields, affording a comprehensive overview of
the entire mental health research field during
our time period.
• Unlike in top-down approaches, we can identify funders who, despite having no explicit
mission or intention to support mental health
research, are nonetheless contributing to the
research landscape.
• We can identify industry funders, a sector
often not included in previous analyses.
• Crucially, the funding acknowledgements in
the database are linked to a range of other key
variables, including topic, country, co-authors
and number of citations at the level of individual papers.
1 Other bibliometric data includes information extracted from
papers relating to topic, countries of authors, co-authors and number
of citations.
4
Mapping the global mental health research funding system
While our approach has many advantages, we also
recognise that funding acknowledgement data is a
relatively new tool for addressing the kinds of questions that form the basis of this study and that our
understanding of strengths and flaws in the data
is still evolving (e.g. Costas & van Leeuwen 2012).
As a result, there remain uncertainties about the
extent to which it can provide a reliable basis for
this kind of exploration. Therefore, we have taken
an inquisitive and sceptical approach towards the
data. The study’s methods were selected to address
these uncertainties and ensure the validity, accuracy and utility of our findings. The areas of concern (some of which we identified at the outset
of the project and others which became apparent throughout), along with the actions taken to
address them, are set out in the text box on the
right.
1.3 Structure of this report
Three components make up the outputs of this
study: this report, which provides a broad overview of the global research funding ecosystem; a
set of 32 ‘deep dive’ profiles of research funders in
Canada, the UK and globally; and a set of six cards
looking at particular cross-cutting themes which
emerged from the funder profiles (all available at
www.randeurope.org/mental-health-ecosystem).
The remainder of this report consists of a mapping of the overall mental health research funding
ecosystem in Chapter 2 and a summary of funders’
future plans emerging from the deep dives in
Chapter 3, before concluding in Chapter 4 with
a discussion of how this analysis might be built
upon and developed in the coming years. The two
annexes provide separate analyses for Canada and
the UK, while the supporting appendices detail
the methods, definitions of indicators and other
additional data.
How robust is the data set?
What comprises ‘mental health’? Have
we selected the right papers?
As part of the study we conducted a telephone
survey of the most frequently acknowledged
funders globally (and separately for Canada and
the UK). This revealed that there is no common
definition of mental health in use by funders. In
the absence of a universally agreed definition, we
based our definition on that used in a previous study
examining global mental health research outputs,
based on journal and paper-level topic classification
(see Appendix A and Larivière et al. 2013). The one
difference made for the present study was to include
substance-related disorders, which it was felt by
the study’s advisory committee were an important
element of the mental health field.
A challenge for studies identifying research that
is specific to a particular condition is how to deal
with basic research that may, or may not, end up
supporting developments in multiple clinical fields
– for example, basic neuroscience research could
support developments in stroke or neurological
conditions as well as in mental health. The aim of
this study was to identify research that is clinically
relevant to mental health and for that reason we
used clinical terms to define the scope of the data
set. This means that while we still capture basic
research which has been identified as clinically
relevant when published (through MeSH terms or
publication in a journal classified in psychiatry), we
miss other basic research whose clinical relevance
was not clear at the time of publication.
Are there funders missing from the
bibliometric data?
To validate the list of research funders obtained from
the funding acknowledgement data, we carried
out a small-scale survey of researchers selected at
random from our paper set (55 responses; for details
see Appendix A). None of the survey participants
reported receiving funding from organisations
which were not already included in our data, and
so while we cannot be certain that it includes
every single funder, we believe the list to be fairly
comprehensive.
Introduction and background
Are funding acknowledgements found
consistently on all papers?
As Thomson Reuters only began systematically
recording funding acknowledgements part way
through 2008, we do not include papers published
before 2009 in our analysis. Just under half of
the papers in our data set contained funding
acknowledgements and, as might be expected for
a newly introduced data field, this proportion has
increased year on year. We have no reason to believe
that the absence of funding acknowledgements
on some papers would systematically bias our
analysis. Figure A1-1 in Appendix A shows the
number of papers with and without funding
acknowledgements for each year.
Our data set also revealed that the number of
acknowledgements per paper has increased over
time (see Appendix A). However, a corresponding
increase can be seen in the number of authors
per paper over this period, with the result that
the number of acknowledgements per author has
remained constant. This seems a logical observation,
given that additional collaborators may bring with
them additional funding to a research team.
Do researchers acknowledge funding
in the way we would expect?
A second small-scale survey of researchers
carried out as part of this study explored the
acknowledgement behaviour of researchers. This
revealed that researchers tend to think about their
funding as separate pots of money to support
specific pieces of research, either exclusively or
alongside a more general pool of funding (for
example, a longer term fellowship award). In
contrast, very few researchers reported pooling their
funding and acknowledging all of their funding
sources on all publications. This means that at the
aggregate level, the funding acknowledgements
reported on papers should broadly reflect the
overall distribution of research funding. The
survey did, however, reveal that we may not fully
capture, for example, infrastructure contributions
supporting research, as few researchers reported
acknowledging facilities and equipment provided by
their institution (see Appendix A for further details).
For this reason, we remain cautious in drawing
5
conclusions about academic institutions identified as
funders in our analysis.
Are mentions of industry funders in
the funding acknowledgement field
qualitatively the same as for other
funders?
As the funding acknowledgement field in Web of
Science is populated by extracting funder names
from the acknowledgement sections of papers, we
were concerned that mentions of organisations in
the pharmaceutical sector may not always reflect
funding, but instead relate to declarations of
potential conflicts of interest by the authors. To
explore this issue further we manually examined
a sample of 80 papers with industry funding
acknowledgements. This revealed that, in general,
papers mentioning more than two industry funders
tended to relate to conflict of interest declarations.
To account for this in the subsequent analyses,
acknowledgements were excluded where the
paper had more than two industry funders listed.
This led to the removal of 962 papers from our
core analysis (as these papers were left with no
acknowledgements).
Do we capture different variants of the
same funder’s name?
While some funders ask researchers to acknowledge
their support in a standard form, for others
there are many variants that exist in the funding
acknowledgement field in Web of Science (for
example, due to the use of acronyms, inclusion of
the funder’s country in the name or simply spelling
mistakes). To minimise the effect of this, all variants
which were found in ten or more papers were
manually examined and attributed to the correct
organisation. Manual searches were also carried
out across the whole data set to identify additional
variants of the funders occurring most frequently.
This means that while there is a long ‘tail’ of
funder names, some of which may be variants of
those in our core analysis set, none of these are
acknowledged on more than nine papers and so
their exclusion from the totals should not have a
major impact on the analysis.
Chapter 2 Mapping the mental health research
funding landscape
Key points
1.The field of mental health research is large (and
growing) and diverse – over 220,000 papers were
published between 2009 and 2014, supported by
over 1,900 funders.
5. In the mental health field, papers acknowledging
the support of charities, foundations and nonprofits tend to have a higher citation impact than
those acknowledging other sectors.
2.
Many of the funders identified using our
approach would have been unlikely to appear in
a top-down analysis of ‘traditional’ mental health
research funders: we identified small or relatively
new charities and foundations, as well as larger
funders whose primary remit does not concern
mental health.
6.The highest concentrations of mental health
research funders are located in North America,
northern and western Europe and China. China
is dominated by government funding agencies,
while some European countries, in particular Finland and Sweden, have relatively higher numbers
of charities and foundations.
3. The United States dominates the mental health
research field, being both the largest producer of
research (36 per cent of publications) and accounting for 31 per cent of government and charity/
foundation/non-profit funding organisations.
7. The mental health papers which focus on a clinical condition cluster into eight groups, with the
most common conditions being neurodegenerative and cognition disorders; depressive, anxiety
and personality disorders; and substance use and
addictive disorders.
4.Charities, foundations and non-profits form the
most numerous group of mental health research
funders (39 per cent of the funders identified),
but governments fund the most papers, accounting for over two-thirds of the papers with funding
acknowledgements.
2.1 How big is the field of mental
health research?
In identifying the major funders of mental health
research globally we first need to define the field
we are considering. In this study we did this on
the basis of journal publications, representing the
knowledge output of funded research. While this
does not allow us to assign a monetary value to the
volume of research funded in the mental health
field (something discussed further in Chapter 4), it
does provide a picture of the volume of knowledge
produced, the subfields in which research is taking
place and the various actors involved in the mental
8.Funder co-acknowledgement on papers tends to
produce national rather than topic-specific clusters,
suggesting that despite increasing international
collaboration, national boundaries still remain
important in mental health research funding.
health research funding ecosystem. As in a previous peer-reviewed study mapping mental health
publications (Larivière et al. 2013), our selected
paper set for this exercise was defined according
to a combination of the Medical Subject Headings
(MeSH terms)2 assigned to individual papers and
the categorisation of the journals in which they
appear. A key difference in this study was that
while the previous definition explicitly excluded
substance-related disorders, a decision was taken
2 MeSH terms are a controlled vocabulary of topic descriptors
assigned by the US National Library of Medicine to journal papers.
8
Mapping the global mental health research funding system
Figure 2-1
Cleaning process of funders
102,324
56,887
2,179
1,908
32
Number of unique funder names
Number of unique funder names (cleaned)
Number of unique funder names (cleaned) –
with more than 10 acknowledgements
Number of unique funder names (cleaned) – with more
than 10 acknowledgements with Conflict of Interest
declarations removed
Deep dive case studies
this time in consultation with the study’s advisory
group to include such papers, due to the complex
interactions between substance use and mental
health. The full criteria for the retrieval of papers
are set out in Appendix A.
Our data set comprised 229,980 papers published during the period 2009-2014. The number
of publications increased year on year, from 35,522
in 2009 to 44,348 in 2013,3 continuing the general growth in the field observed in Larivière et al.
(2013), albeit with the inclusion of substancerelated disorders in the present study. The share
of mental health publications in the total medical
publication output increased very slightly during
the period our data set covers, from 6.9 per cent to
7.1 per cent. The United States remains the largest
producer of mental health research, with 36 per cent
of papers having a corresponding author with a US
address. The UK (8 per cent), Germany (6 per cent),
Canada and Australia (both with 5 per cent) follow.
The breakdown of the paper set by corresponding
author location is provided in Appendix B.
2.2 How many mental health
research funders are there?
Our analysis revealed 1,908 funders with ten or
more acknowledgements in the data set. Some 85
per cent of the papers with funding acknowledge-
3 This is the most recent year for which complete data is available,
since indexing of 2014 publications was only partially complete in
spring 2015 when our final data set was extracted.
ments in our sample mention one or more of these
funders, representing 72 per cent of the total
acknowledgements identified. These 1,908 organisations form the core set of funders used in the
subsequent analyses.
This total was reached through an extensive
data cleaning process, summarised in Figure
2-1 above. As noted above, around half of the
papers identified (49.5 per cent) contained funding acknowledgements (of course, this does not
mean that the other papers did not receive funding; acknowledging support is rarely mandatory/
enforceable). Since in some instances more than
one funder was acknowledged, the total number
Our analysis revealed
1,908 funders
with ten or more
acknowledgements
in the data set
of acknowledgements was 364,324, which corresponded to 102,324 different funder names.
Given the expected inconsistencies in the form
of funder names (for example, differing use of
acronyms or inconsistencies in spelling), the data
required substantial manual cleaning, which
reduced the number of unique funder names to
56,887.4 Further manual checking of those with
acknowledgements in at least ten papers and the
removal of conflict of interest declarations produced the final group of 1,908 funders used in our
analysis. Selecting funders and then examining
what they fund would have been very unlikely to
have allowed the identification of this number of
organisations.
4 It is also important to note that while some funding
acknowledgements were specific to a particular department or
initiative within a funding institution others would be very general.
For example, one paper may reference a particular NHS hospital
whereas another may just reference NHS England. In order to
ensure accurate data analysis of the funders, names were aggregated
to the highest level where possible.
Mapping the mental health research funding landscape 9
Figure 2-2
Funders with ten or more acknowledgements (coloured by country)
ALF
BBRF
University of California
US NSF
SRC
AR UK
Alz Assoc.
NIMH
NSFC
MICINN
WT
Roche Found.
Pfizer
NRF
ARC
AstraZeneca
FAS
RWJF
CAPES
DHHS
DFG
Lilly
FRQS
MRC UK
NIH
GSK
NIDA
NHMRC
NIA
NSERC
EU
NRC
NIHR
Janssen
MIUR
JSPS
NHS England
NHLBI
INSERM
MHW Korea
MEST
FIS
FAPESP
NICHD
CIHRMHLW Japan
NIBIB
BMBF
ESRC UK
NINDS
NSC Taiwan
NWO
NIAAA
US CDC
SMRI
SNSF
CNPq Brazil
US DOD
USPHS
UK DH
VA
Academy of Finland
KCL
NCRR
973 China
NCI
MEXT
Key:
USA
Taiwan
Iceland
UK
New Zealand
Estonia
Sweden
Ireland
Iran
Canada
Singapore
Colombia
Netherlands
Israel
Saudi Arabia
Australia
India
Slovakia
China
South Africa
Croatia
France
Czech Republic
Qatar
Germany
Poland
Venezuela
Japan
Turkey
Nigeria
Spain
Chile
Serbia
Finland
Hungary
Romania
Italy
Argentina
Slovenia
Denmark
Greece
Lebanon
Switzerland
Malaysia
Philippines
Belgium
Austria
Bulgaria
South Korea
Mexico
Pakistan
EU
Portugal
Lithuania
Norway
Russia
Brazil
Thailand
10
Mapping the global mental health research funding system
2.3 Who are they?
The 1,908 research funders found in our final data
set are represented in Figure 2-2. The size of each
bubble is proportional to the number of papers on
which the funder was acknowledged (although
those with fewer than 500 acknowledgements are
very similar in size), while the colour indicates the
country of the funder to provide an overview of
their geographical distribution (position of each
funder is not significant in this figure, but the relationships between them are addressed in Section
2.6). A list of funder acronyms can be found in
Appendix C.
The top 30 most frequently acknowledged
funders globally are listed in Table 2-1, while
similar national lists for Canada and the UK
are provided in Annexes 1 and 2. As expected,
the group of top global funders is dominated by
government agencies, particularly those in the
United States. Charities, foundations and nonprofits are represented in the list by the Brain and
Behavior Research Foundation, the Alzheimer’s
Association and the Stanley Medical Research
Institute, all of which are located in the United
States, and the UK’s Wellcome Trust, which is the
third highest placed UK funder after the Medical Research Council and National Institute for
Health Research. The highest placed non-Anglophone funder on the list is the European Commis-
sion, with government agencies of China, Japan,
Brazil and a number of western European countries also appearing in the top 30. While a number
of caveats are associated with our estimation of
the scale of industry funding (for example, in relation to conflict of interest declarations on papers),
one pharmaceutical company appears towards the
lower end of the top 30, Pfizer.
Charities, foundations and non-profits
form the most numerous group of
funders, but governments fund the most
papers
Charities, foundations, non-profits and government agencies make up the majority of our set of
1,908 funders. Charities, foundations and nonprofits represent 39 per cent of the total and government bodies 33 per cent, but the latter account
for 68 per cent of the funding acknowledgements
in our data set (see Figure 2-3). Thus, perhaps
unsurprisingly, the typical government funder
supports more mental health research than the
typical charity, foundation or non-profit. The average number of acknowledgements per government
agency is 237, compared with an average of 58 for
charities, foundations and non-profits. This is consistent with the dominance of government funders
in the list of those most frequently acknowledged.
Looking in more detail, however, we can see that
the distribution of organisations in terms of the
800
160,000
700
140,000
600
120,000
500
100,000
400
638
300
200
60,000
40,000
389
42,137
100
0
80,000
151,276
743
20,000
105
17,987
Academia
Charity/Foundation
Government
9,905
Industry
0
Number of acknowledgements
Number of funders
Figure 2-3
Number of funders (and respective acknowledgements) by funder sector
Mapping the mental health research funding landscape 11
Table 2-1
Top 30 most frequently acknowledged funders globally
Funder
No. of
papers
Location
Sector
Proportion
of papers
1
US National Institutes of Health (NIH)
16716
USA
Government
15%
2
National Institute of Mental Health (NIMH)
10081
USA
Government
9%
3
National Institute on Drug Abuse (NIDA)
6231
USA
Government
6%
4
National Institute on Aging (NIA)
5266
USA
Government
5%
5
Canadian Institutes of Health Research (CIHR)
4701
Canada
Government
4%
6
Department of Veterans Affairs (VA)
4387
USA
Government
4%
7
National Health and Medical Research Council of Australia
(NHMRC)
4033
Australia
Government
4%
8
European Commission
4021
EU
Government
4%
9
National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC)
3836
China
Government
3%
10 UK Medical Research Council (MRC UK)
3503
UK
Government
3%
11
Brain and Behavior Research Foundation (NARSAD)
3281
USA
Charity/ Foundation/
Non-profit
3%
12
Netherlands Organization of Scientific Research (NWO)
3112
Netherlands
Government
3%
13
National Institute for Health Research (NIHR)
3062
UK
Government
3%
14
National Institute on Alcohol Abuse and Alcoholism (NIAAA)
2887
USA
Government
3%
15 Wellcome Trust
2434
UK
Charity/ Foundation/
Non-profit
2%
16
German Research Foundation/Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft (DFG)
2360
Germany
Government
2%
17
National Institute of Health Carlos III (FIS)
2225
Spain
Government
2%
18
CNPq Brazil
1994
Brazil
Government
2%
19 Federal Ministry of Education and Research (BMBF)
1939
Germany
Government
2%
20 National Center for Research Resources (NCRR)
1917
USA
Government
2%
21 Eunice Kennedy Shriver National Institute of Child Health and
Human Development (NICHD)
1909
USA
Government
2%
22
Ministry of Education, Culture, Sports, Science and
Technology in Japan (MEXT)
1852
Japan
Government
2%
23 National Institute of Neurological Disorders and Stroke
(NINDS)
1847
USA
Government
2%
24
Alzheimer’s Association
1636
USA
Charity/ Foundation/
Non-profit
1%
25
Swedish Research Council
1409
Sweden
Government
1%
26
Stanley Medical Research Institute (SMRI)
1317
USA
Charity/ Foundation/
Non-profit
1%
27
Pfizer
1197
USA
Industry
1%
28 Spanish Ministry of Science and Innovation (MICINN)
1151
Spain
Government
1%
29
Fundacao de Amparo a Pesquisa do Estado de Sao Paulo
(FAPESP)
1132
Brazil
Government
1%
30
Department of Health and Human Services (DHHS)
1128
USA
Government
1%
12
Mapping the global mental health research funding system
Figure 2-4
Distribution of funders in the government and charity/foundation/non-profit sectors,
by numbers of papers on which they are acknowledged
400
400
Charities/Foundations
350
350
300
Number of funders
Number of funders
300
250
200
150
250
200
150
100
100
50
50
0
Government
20
40
60
80
100 150 200
Funding acknowledgements
500 More
0
20
40
60
80
100 150 200
Funding acknowledgements
500
More
volume of research supported is heavily skewed in
both sectors (Figure 2-4). While in both government and charity sectors there are large numbers
of funders supporting small amounts of mental
health research, the government sector has a notably higher number of very large funders. Our data
indicates that there are few such large funders
in the charity, foundation and non-profit sector.
What we cannot judge from this data, however,
are the absolute amounts of money involved,
something discussed further in Chapter 4.
The remaining organisations in our analysis
were classified as industry funders or academic
institutions.5 While uncertainties around industry
funding have been discussed previously, the extent
to which academic institutions are providing independent funding for research is also unclear. In
many cases, these acknowledgements may represent, for example, the provision of laboratory space,
infrastructure or support services by a researcher’s
host institution. That is not to suggest that these
forms of support are not important, but highlights
that they are more difficult to capture in this kind
of analysis due to inconsistencies in the way that
researchers acknowledge support which may be
non-monetary or less-formally attributed to a particular project.6
The share of funding acknowledgements
accounted for by each sector has remained fairly
constant over the six year time period covered by
our data (see Figure B-3 in Appendix B.).
5 In addition to these groups there were a small number of funders
6 Our survey of researchers revealed that only 20 per cent usually
that either did not fit into these categories (such as publishers) or
were unable to be classified due to a lack of available information.
Papers acknowledging charity,
foundation or non-profit support have
the highest citation impact
Measures of citation can be used as an indicator of the scientific impact a particular piece of
research has in the academic world. As publication and citation practices vary substantially by
discipline (e.g. Moed et al. 1985), we use the
indicator ‘average of relative citations’ (ARC),
which normalises the number of citations a paper
receives according to its age (since older papers
have had more time to accumulate citations) and
the field in which it is published (see Appendix A
for further details).
In our data set, the ARC of papers containing funding acknowledgements was substantially
acknowledged access to equipment and facilities in journal papers,
and only 4 per cent acknowledged estate costs.
Mapping the mental health research funding landscape 13
Figure 2-5
Average of relative citations by funder sector (world average = 1.0)7
2.50
2.00
1.91
Field normalised citation
1.63
1.58
1.64
1.48
1.50
1.00
0.93
0.50
0.00
Academia
Charity/Foundation
Government
above the global average (of 1.00) for all sectors
(see Figure 2-5), a finding consistent with previous
studies demonstrating that papers acknowledging
funding tend to be more highly cited than those
without such acknowledgements (e.g. Costas &
van Leeuwen 2012). In addition to this, however, papers acknowledging support from a charity, foundation or non-profit had a higher citation impact on average than those acknowledging
other sectors. This was also true within individual
countries (see Annexes 1 and 2 for data on Canada
and the UK), suggesting that the higher average
citation of papers supported by charities, foundations and non-profits is not due solely to the geographical distribution of funding organisations.
There are examples of new funders
emerging in the field of mental health
One of the primary reasons for using a bottomup approach in this analysis, in contrast to the
top-down approach of many previous studies, was
to enable us to explore the field of mental health
7 Funder sectors were only assigned to funders with 10 or more
acknowledgements
Industry
Papers with funding Papers without funding
acknowledgements
acknowledgements
research beyond the large and well-known funders.
Through the funding acknowledgement data
extracted from journal papers we have been able to
do this, highlighting some funders who have begun
supporting mental health research only recently.
We looked at the number of acknowledgements of each funder in each year of the data set
and identified those with the greatest differences
in frequency between the first part (2009-2012)
and second part (2013-2014) of the time period.
Some of the funders highlighted by this analysis
were organisations which had changed name or
restructured during or shortly before the first year
of our data set – for example, the Spanish Ministry of the Economy and Competiveness, created
in 2011 from the merger of two prior ministries.
However, there were also examples of newly
established funders. The US National Center for
Advancing Translational Sciences (established
under the auspices of NIH in 2012) is a notable
example here. It was established with the aim of
speeding up the delivery of new drugs, diagnostics
and medical devices to patients (a challenge highlighted by a number of funders in our deep dive
interviews).
14
Mapping the global mental health research funding system
the United States is
home to 31 per cent
of all government,
charity, foundation
and non-profit mental
health research
funders in our data set
We also identified a range of smaller organisations, primarily in the charity, foundation and
non-profit sector, which were either recently established or began new funding programmes related
to mental health in the years just prior to our data
set. The clearest examples of this were the Swiss
Anorexia Nervosa Foundation, which was established in 2007 and appears in our data from 2012,
and the William K. Wallace Foundation (US) and
Champalimaud Foundation (Portugal), which
launched mental health and neuroscience programmes, respectively, in 2007.
Being able to identify the emergence of new
funders or funding programmes in the data both
highlights the value of mapping mental health
research funding using a bottom-up approach, and
also serves as a useful validation of the sensitivity
of our methodology to changes in the ecosystem.
2.4 Where are they?
Government, charity, foundation and
non-profit funders are clustered in
the countries which produce the most
mental health research
To explore the geographical distribution of mental
health research funding agencies we identified the
location of each of the funders in our set of 1,908.
In instances where funders are international (such
as multilateral organisations) the location of the
funder’s headquarters is considered to be its home
country (with the exception of European Union
institution funding, which is not attributed to any
one country). For this analysis we use only organ-
isations in the government and charity/foundation/non-profit sectors. Industry funders tend to
operate in many countries, making it difficult to
accurately attribute funding to any one country,
while (as discussed previously) the acknowledgement of support from academic institutions in
providing non-monetary or less-formal support
appears inconsistent.
As shown in Figure 2-6 below, the United
States is home to 31 per cent of all government,
charity, foundation and non-profit mental health
research funders in our data set. The UK, Canada,
Sweden, China and the Netherlands each have
more than 60 funders.
In total, government, charity, foundation and
non-profit mental health research funders were
identified in 55 countries,8 with the majority
located in North America, northern and western
Europe and China. Perhaps unsurprisingly, the
highest concentrations of funding agencies tend
to be located in the countries producing the most
mental health research. Of the ten countries with
the highest volume of mental health publications
in our data set, only one (Italy) was not also in the
top ten in terms of number of funders.
Figure 2-7 and Figure 2-8 show this same data
split by sector. They highlight that the predominant funder type varies somewhat by country.
While the United States is home to the largest
number of funders in both sectors examined here,
China is dominated by government funding agencies, while the UK, the United States, Australia,
Denmark, Germany and, in particular, Sweden
and Finland, have greater numbers of charitable
funders.
Figure 2-9 shows the average citation impact
of funders in each country – that is, the average
level of citation of papers acknowledging funders
from a given country, when normalized for field
and year of publication. Funders in Ireland, EU
institutions, the UK, Switzerland, and New Zealand average the highest citation impact, followed
by papers funded by institutions in Germany,
France, the United States and the Netherlands. Of
the countries receiving large numbers of funding
acknowledgements, South Korea, Taiwan, Brazil,
China and Japan score notably lower than other
major research funding and producing countries.
8 58 countries were identified if we include academia
Mapping the mental health research funding landscape 15
Figure 2-6
Number of government, charity, foundation and non-profit mental health research funders by country
Figure 2-7
Government funders by country
16
Mapping the global mental health research funding system
Figure 2-8
Charity, foundation and non-profit funders by country
Figure 2-9
Average relative citations by country of funder9
9 For government, charity, foundation and non-profit mental
health research funders in countries with over 100 papers
Mapping the mental health research funding landscape 17
We also compared the number of acknowledgements per country (of funding organisation)
with an indicator of overall spend on research
and development. As mentioned previously, we
cannot assume a direct link between funding
acknowledgements and amounts of funding, but
this does provide an indication of which countries
may be supporting relatively more or less research
in the mental health field compared with other
research areas. The R&D expenditure data used
is from 2009 or the nearest available year prior to
that, given that the time between funding being
awarded and a research paper being published has
been shown to be around three years on average
(e.g. Boyack & Jordan 2011).
Figure 2-10 reveals a number of countries with
relatively large numbers of acknowledgements
in mental health, including the UK, Canada,
Figure 2-10
Acknowledgements per funder country by R&D expenditure: (i) all countries. (ii) excluding
the United States (Source: UNESCO, 2009 or nearest available prior year)
120,000
Funding acknowledgements
100,000
US
80,000
60,000
40,000
20,000
UK
CA
0
DE
FR
$-
$50
CN
JP
$100
$150
$200
$250
$300
$350
$400
$450
Millions
R&D expenditure (US$ current PPP)
25,000
Funding acknowledgements
20,000
UK
15,000
CA
10,000
AU
CN
NL
SE
5,000
FI
DK
0
CH
BE
DE
ES
BR
FR
KR
IT
IN
$-
$20
JP
RU
$40
$60
$80
$100
$120
R&D expenditure (US$ current PPP)
$140
$160
$180
Millions
18
Mapping the global mental health research funding system
Australia and the Netherlands. A second group,
including China, Japan, India and Russia has
relatively few acknowledgements given the size of
their annual R&D expenditure, suggesting that
they focus their research resources in other areas.
2.5 What are they funding?
Funded topics cluster into eight groups
of mental health conditions
Medical Subject Headings (MeSH terms) are a
defined set of terms applied to journal papers to
indicate the type of content. They can be used to
understand the topics of the papers in our data set
and how these topics relate to one another. We
looked at terms within the MeSH subset ‘Mental
Disorders’ to explore the various mental health
conditions that the research in our data set focuses
on. Terms within this subset occur on 69 per cent
of all papers (76 per cent of papers with acknowledgments). Since each paper can be assigned a
number of terms within the Mental Disorders
subset, we could build a network of the co-occurrence of terms. This network showed that within
our dataset conditions clustered into eight broad
groups, representing terms which tend to occur
together on papers. The groups have been labelled
with a descriptor that covers the majority of terms
in that class (see Appendix D for a full list of terms
in each group).
Using the entire data set, Figure 2-11 shows the
number of papers falling within each of the eight
groups. The most common conditions occurring
in our data set, together comprising 61 per cent
of all papers, are neurodegenerative and cognition
disorders; depressive, anxiety and personality disorders; and substance use and addictive disorders.
Papers may fall into more than one class if they
contain terms from multiple classes.
Figure 2-12 takes the same data, but adds an
extra dimension by showing the proportion of
papers in each group which also include a funding acknowledgement. This varies by the area of
mental health the paper relates to, with, for example, 66 per cent of papers on neurodegenerative
and cognition disorders acknowledging at least
one funding source, in comparison with only 48
per cent of those relating to sleep disorders. Further analysis of the funders acknowledged in each
of these groups is set out in Section 2.6, where we
look at networks of the funders co-acknowledged
on papers within each.
Figure 2-11
Papers in complete data set with ‘Mental Disorder’ MeSH terms
Sex development disorders
Depressive, anxiety and personality disorders
Neurodegenerative and cognition disorders
Schizophrenia, bipolar and other psychotic disorders
Sleep disorders
Eating disorders
Neurodevelopmental disorders
Substance use and addictive disorders
Mapping the mental health research funding landscape 19
Figure 2-12
Coxcomb plot of papers with acknowledgement data and Mental Disorder MeSH terms
49.1%
46.4%
46.5%
Sex development disorders
Depressive, anxiety and personality disorders
Neurodegenerative and cognition disorders
Schizophrenia, bipolar and other psychotic disorders
44.8%
Sleep disorders
Eating disorders
34.9%
Neurodevelopmental disorders
66.2%
Substance use and addictive disorders
48.1%
61.4%
Figure 2-13
Funding acknowledgements by sector for each group of MeSH terms
Sex development disorders
11%
Substance use and addictive disorders
12%
Sleep disorders
81%
79%
14%
Eating disorders
2% 6%
3% 6%
67%
16%
10%
70%
9%
4%
Charity/Foundation
11%
Government
Depressive anxiety and personality disorders
67%
18%
6%
9%
Neurodevelopmental disorders
22%
66%
4%
8%
Neurodegenerative and cognition disorders
23%
66%
4%
8%
Schizophrenia, bipolar and other psychotic disorders
23%
0%
10%
62%
20%
Government funders support the most
research in every subfield of mental
health, but the involvement of charities
and industry varies by area
Figure 2-13 shows how the involvement of funders
in different sectors varies in each of the eight
topic groups. It shows the proportion of funding
acknowledgements attributable to each sector in
each of the eight groups formed from ‘Mental Disorder’ MeSH terms in our data set. In all eight
30%
40%
50%
7%
60%
70%
80%
90%
Industry
Academia
8%
100%
areas the majority of funding acknowledgements
relate to government funders, but in schizophrenia, bipolar and other psychotic disorders, as well
as both neurodegenerative and neurodevelopmental conditions, charities, foundations and nonprofits account for more than 20 per cent of the
total acknowledgements. Industry funders appear
to invest more in sleep disorders and schizophrenia, bipolar and other psychotic disorders than in
other areas of mental health.
20
Mapping the global mental health research funding system
Figure 2-14
Research level of papers by year
45%
40%
35%
% of papers
30%
25%
1 (clinical observation)
20%
3 (clinical investigation)
2 (clinical mix)
4 (basic biomedical)
15%
10%
5%
0%
2009
2010
2011
2012
Industry funders tend to support more
applied research
The ‘research level’ assigned to a journal provides
an indication of the type of research it publishes.10
There are four levels, which form a scale from
applied to basic research: (1) clinical observation
(e.g. Schizophrenia Bulletin); (2) clinical mix (e.g.
Journal of Psychiatric Research); (3) clinical investigation (e.g. Neuropsychopharmacology); and (4)
basic biomedical (e.g. Neuroscience). It should be
noted that research level is a fairly crude measure,
since it is applied at the journal level, rather than
to individual papers and not all journals have been
classified. However, it is the best approximation
available and when used at the aggregate level can
provide an overview of how basic or applied a body
of research is. In a previous study (Wooding et al.
2013) we noted that over a 20-year time period
clinical research has had a larger impact than
basic research on patient care in the mental health
field. This observation raises questions about how
research funders can best balance their portfolios to
achieve their intended impacts within appropriate
timeframes and highlights the value of exploring
the distribution of research types within the field.
Figure 2-14 shows that the representation of
journals at each research level in our data set has
not changed dramatically over time, although the
10 As defined by the Patent Board (formerly CHI Research):
Hamilton, K. (2003) Subfield and Level Classification of Journals
(CHI Report No. 2012-R). Cherry Hill, NJ: CHI Research
2013
2014
proportion of the most clinically-focused research
appears to increase in 2014. While this could be a
short term fluctuation or the start of a longer term
trend, it is important to bear in mind that the
indexing of 2014 papers was incomplete when we
extracted our data (and so this variation may be an
artefact of differential indexing of journals at each
research level). In contrast, we do see a difference
in the distribution of research levels according to
the sector of the funder acknowledged (Figure
2-15). Industry funding is associated with a greater
proportion of the most applied research (level 1)
and is acknowledged on a much smaller proportion of papers in basic biomedical (level 4) journals than is the case for funders from other sectors.
The US and the UK are consistently
the top two funder countries across all
subfields of mental health research
In all eight areas of mental health research, US
funding organisations were most frequently
acknowledged in our data set, followed by funders
in the UK (Table 2-2). Below these two countries
there was more variation, although Canada was
third or fourth in each of the six largest areas and
Australia was also prominent. Chinese funders
were acknowledged proportionally more in neurodegenerative and cognition disorders. Swedish
organisations also featured prominently in this
area, as well as (along with Spanish funders) on
papers relating to eating disorders.
Mapping the mental health research funding landscape 21
Figure 2-15
Research level of papers by funder sector
100%
90%
80%
70%
60%
4 (basic biomedical)
50%
3 (clinical investigation)
40%
1 (clinical observation)
2 (clinical mix)
30%
20%
10%
0%
Academia
Charity/Foundation
Government
Industry
Table 2-2
Top ten most frequently acknowledged funding countries for each group of MeSH terms
Neurodegener­
ative and
cognition
disorders
Depressive
anxiety and
personality
disorders
Substance
use and
addictive
disorders
Neurodevelop­
mental
disorders
Schizophrenia,
bipolar
and other
psychotic
disorders
Sleep
disorders
Eating
disorders
Sex
develop­
ment
disorders
1
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
USA
2
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
UK
3
China
Netherlands
Canada
Canada
Australia
Brazil
Spain
Japan
4
Canada
Canada
Australia
Australia
Canada
Canada
Sweden
Brazil
5
Sweden
Australia
Netherlands
Germany
Spain
China
Germany
China
6
Australia
Germany
Spain
Netherlands
China
Japan
Australia
EU
7
Spain
China
China
EU
Japan
Australia
Canada
Australia
8
Japan
Brazil
Sweden
France
Netherlands
Germany
EU
Canada
9
EU
Spain
Germany
Japan
Brazil
Finland
Brazil
Germany
Germany
Sweden
Finland
China
Germany
Sweden
France
Switzerland
10
2.6 How do funders relate to one
another?
One of the aims of this study was to identify
the connections between mental health research
funders, whether these arise through formal funding collaborations or due to researchers using
funding from two (or more) different organisations to support the same work. To explore these
connections, we used papers with multiple funding acknowledgements to link funders. For example, a paper supported by CIHR and the Wellcome Trust would produce a link between these
organisations. While we are not aware of previous studies using funding acknowledgement data
in this way, network analysis is increasingly being
used to evaluate collaborative research and explore
the relationships between actors in a network and
22
Mapping the global mental health research funding system
information flows between them – numerically or
graphically (e.g. Wagner et al. 2005).
Networks constructed using funding
acknowledgement data indicate simply where two
funders are acknowledged on the same paper. As
such, this analysis cannot (on its own) differentiate
qualitatively between cases of ‘active’ collaboration
between funders and instances in which
researchers combine funding from two (or more)
organisations to support the same work. It can,
however, cast light on the extent to which funders’
portfolios overlap or complement one another,
highlight where they (knowingly or unknowingly)
co-fund research and reveal whether any clusters of
funders emerge. To complement this, the profiles
of individual funding organisations completed as
part of the study detail current collaborative and
cooperative activities that each funder actively
engages in.
In the mental health research field as a
whole…
A network analysis was conducted to examine the
extent of collaboration and co-acknowledgement
across our core set of 1,908 funders (Figure 2-16;
see Appendix A for methodological details). A
larger-scale version of the network is included in
the pack which accompanies this overview report.
The network analysis aimed to highlight the relationships between funders linked through funding acknowledgements on each paper. Using a
‘network approach’ in exploring this provides a
systemic perspective on linkages between funders
as it takes into account the dynamics of the system
as a whole, as well as the relative position of individual funders in collaborative networks and thus
affords greater analytical detail.
In the network, each node represents a funder
and the connecting lines indicate these funders’
co-acknowledgement on papers (a heavier line
indicating a greater number of co-acknowledgements). The size of a node is proportional to the
number of acknowledgements that the funder has
in the data set. Funders are coloured by modularity class – clusters which emerge from the data
and provide an indication of how closely related
nodes are in terms of co-acknowledgement. The
organisations within each cluster are densely connected to others within the same class and are
more sparsely connected to those outside it (see
Appendix A for further details).
The overall network illustrates the complexity of the research funding ecosystem in mental
health. The dominance of US funders is clear, in
particular of NIH and its associated institutes.
Major government funders in Canada, the UK,
China, Australia and the EU can also be seen, surrounded by a large number of smaller government
agencies and other funders. Generally, the clusters
emerging from the data are geographical, representing either countries or regions. This suggests
that despite increasing international collaboration
in research (e.g. Gazni et al. 2012; Waltman et
al. 2011), national boundaries are still important
in funding distribution. Similar networks specifically for Canada and the UK can be found in
Annexes 1 and 2.
In subfields of mental health…
We also developed individual networks for funders
acknowledged on papers in each of the topic
groups identified in Figure 2-11. These networks
give an overview of the funders active in each area
and the relationships between them. The five largest topic areas are shown in Figures 2-17 to 2-21.
Funders are again coloured according to modularity class. Further details on the construction of the
network maps are set out in Appendix A.
In neurodegenerative and cognition disorders
(Figure 2-17), funders whose portfolios focus on
aging and dementia are clearly visible, in particular NIA and a number of charities and foundations focusing on Alzheimer’s and Parkinson’s
research. The noticeable presence of some relatively large charity funders is consistent with our
earlier observation that this is one of the areas of
mental health research in which charities, foundations and non-profits appear to be most active.
While US government agencies are still the most
prominent funders in this field, there is a wide
representation of European funders towards the
right of the network, including a notable cluster
of UK funders (shown in red) and a similar group
of Swedish organisations (in brown). Most other
European funders form one cluster (in a lighter
green than the United States).
For depressive, anxiety and personality disorders (Figure 2-18), the funding landscape divides
broadly into two large clusters, one dominated by
the United States, but also including some industry funders, and the other consisting mainly of
European and Australian funders (again with a
Mapping the mental health research funding landscape 23
few pharmaceutical companies). The other organisations acknowledged on significant numbers of
papers in this subfield form four national clusters
for Canada, Brazil, China and Japan.
As one might expect, the funding landscape
for substance use and addictive disorders (Figure
2-19) is dominated by NIDA and NIAAA, along
with NIH. Most of the major funders in the network are government agencies, an observation
consistent with the relatively low involvement of
charities, foundations and non-profits seen in Section 2.5. Notable exceptions include the Wellcome
Trust and Robert Wood Johnson Foundation.
In neurodevelopmental disorders (Figure 2-20)
we see a large and closely linked network of US
funders. Compared with other research areas (and
as expected) NICHD is much more prominent, as
are the charitable funders Autism Speaks and the
Simons Foundation Autism Research Initiative.
EU institutions also appear prominent, a finding
consistent with our earlier observation that this
is a research area in which they are more heavily
involved (see Table 2-2). There are fewer industry
funders than found in some other areas (as also
illustrated previously) exceptions being Shire and
Eli Lilly.
The landscape for schizophrenia, bipolar and
other psychotic disorders (Figure 2-21) is dominated by a few large US funders – NIMH, NIH,
the Brain and Behavior Research Foundation and
the Stanley Medical Research Institute. Other
major funders tend to be pharmaceutical companies and government agencies in the countries
most frequently acknowledged in our data set.
Finally, networks were constructed for two
population groups of different ages. Figure 2-22
shows funders acknowledged on papers concerned
with young people (MeSH terms “Adolescent”,
“Child”, “infant” and “young adult”, plus terms
making up the levels below them in the hierarchical MeSH structure), a group of particular interest
given the early age of onset of many mental health
conditions (Kessler et al. 2007). Figure 2-23 shows
the corresponding network for older age groups
(“Aged” and “middle aged”, plus the terms below
them in the MeSH structure).
The funding landscape for research relevant to
young people (Figure 2-22) shows clear clusters for
the United States (in purple), the UK (dark blue)
and Canada (red), as well as for Australia, Sweden,
China and Brazil (all towards the bottom right
of the network). In addition to the government
funders frequently acknowledged in a range of
areas, charities including the Tourette Syndrome
Association, the Simons Foundation Autism
Research Institute, Autism Speaks, the MacArthur Foundation (all US), the Colonial Foundation in Australia and the Yrjö Jahnsson Foundation in Finland all feature.
The network for older people (Figure 2-23) contains a wide range of organisations, likely reflecting the broad range of topics that the selected
MeSH terms are likely to cover. Nevertheless, as
found in the network for neurodegenerative conditions, there is a notable cluster of mostly Swedish funders (in pink). NIA is prominent, as might
be expected, while a number of Alzheimer’s, Parkinson’s and cancer charities are also visible.
24
Mapping the global mental health research funding system
Figure 2-16
Network of co-acknowledged funders in the entire mental health data set (coloured by modularity
class). A larger-scale version of this figure has been published alongside this report.
Seattle G
Clemson Uni Institute on Famil...
American Orthopsychiatric Asso...
International Society for Chil...
Judie and Marshall Polk Resear...
Allergan
King S
China Scholarship
Broad GO Sequencing Project
Montreal Childrens Hospital Re...
International Family Therapy A...
Psychological Assessment Reso
Inokashira Hospital Research F...
Uni of Southern Denmark
Argentina
Hirosaki Research Institute fo...
McGraw
Hill
Hanyang Uni
Cell Science Research Found. J...
Spanish Ministry of Public Hea...
McLau
Promotion and Mutual Aid Corpo...
National Center for Geriatrics...
Daiichi Sankyo
Naito Found.
American Society for Clinical ...
Strategic Research Program for...
Japan Epilepsy Research Found.
Brains
Japanese Society of Clinical N...
NCNP
Medical Research Council of Ca...
Academic Frontier Project for ...
Physicians Academy
Queens Uni
Niigata Uni
China Medical Board of New Yor...
Suzuken Memorial Found.
Astellas Found.
Drummond Found.
MS Society of Canada
Mental Health Commission of Ca...
Random House
General Insurance Association ...
NEDO, Japan
Kanae Science Found.
Danone OBI
Saul A. Silverman Family Found.
Showa Uni
SENSHIN Medical Research Found.
Mochida
Smoking Research Found. of Japan
Agencia Nacional de Promocion ...
Akdeniz Uni
Research Group for Schizophrenia
Japan Arteriosclerosis Prevent...
RIKEN
Health and Labor Sciences Rese...
Mitsubishi Tanabe Pharma Corpo...
Alberta Health Services
Uni of Saskatchewan
Mitsui Sumitomo Insurance Welf...
Ministry for Food
Japanese Research Found. for C...
Alberta
Childrens
Hospital
Fou...
Templeton Found.
In Silico
Mind and Life Institute
Canadian Diabetes Association/...
Lawson Health Research Institute
Takeda Science Found.
Fetzer Institute
Healt
Ontario Research Fund
Shanghai Key Discipline Program
Japan Found. for Neuroscience ...
Buddhist Tzu Chi General Hospi...
Ontario Institute for Cancer R...
Kakenhi NIBIO NCNP
Shervert Frazier Rese
NeuroDevNet
CONICET
Auckland Medical Research Found.
WPA
National Basic Research and De...
Alberta Gaming Research Instit...
Interstitial Cystitis Associat...
Japan Health Sciences Found.
Govt. of Canada
Royal Society of New Zealand M...
Shanghai Key Project of Basic ...
JSPS
Ritter Found.
Uni of Western Ontario
Ontario
Problem
Gambling
Resea...
Uehara
Memorial
Found.
(Japan)
COE
Respironics
Found.
Accident Compensation Corporat...
Program for Outstanding Medica...
Norlien Found.
Chinese Govt.
ResMed Found.
Health Sciences Found.
Uni of Alberta
Capital District Health Author...
Shanghai Pujiang Talent Program
X
CREST
MOE - Shanghai Key Laboratory ...
Whitehall and Packard Found.s
Fudan Uni
Behrens-Weise-Stiftung
Prentiss Found.
Zikei Institute of Psychiatry
Canadian Cancer Society Resear...
Federal Ministry of Health
Shanghai Municipal Education C...
USAID
Uni of Mississipp
Juntendo Uni
JST
International Rett Syndrome Fo...
Schizophrenia Society of Ontario
Alcohol Advisory Council of Ne...
ICES
Ministry of Health and the Nat...
Toronto Rehabilitation Institu...
PSI Found
Urban Institute
Canadian Health Services and R...
Science and Technology Bureau ...
William K. Warren Found. of Tu...
Ontario Ministry of Research a...
Child and Family Research Inst...
Beijing Municipality
Hunan Provincial Natural Scien...
Shanghai Municipal Health Bure...
Sichuan Uni FQRNT
Saskatchewan Health Research F...
Scottish Rite Charitable Found...
Hospital for Sick Children Fou...
Alkermes
Dalhousie Medical Research Fou...
China Academy of Chinese Medic...
Fonds Quebecois - Societe et l...
Manitoba Medical Services Foun...
American Psychological Associa...
Massachusetts Huntingtons Dise...
Shenzhen Bureau of Science
PCSIRT
Genome Canada
Heart&Stroke Fou
NSLIJ Research Institute NIH G...
State Education Ministry of Ch...
National Basic Research Program
MEXT
MHLW Japan
State Key Program of National ...
US DOD
Ontario Innovations Trust
McGill Uni
Ontario Neurotrauma Found.
Ministere de l'education
National Child Health Research...
N
Jack
Brown
and
Family
Alz.
Fou...
Uni of Texas
Shanghai Changning Health Bure...
Lebanese Ministry of Public He...
Uni of Montreal
Canadian Stroke Network
Edmond J. Safra Philanthropic ...
CAS/SAFEA
Shanghai Rising- Star Program
Ontario Womens Health Council
Neurological Found. of New Zea...
CAS
Uni of Otago
McMaster Uni
Vancouver Coastal Health Resea...
BC Mental Health and Addiction...
Key Program of Medical Develop...
Blowitz Ridgeway Found.
PAPD, China
Janssen Research Found.
Spanish Child Psychiatry Assoc...
Yunnan Province Govt.
Ministry of Social Protection ...
Independent Innovation Found. ...
Uni of Michigan
Fok
Ying
Tung
Found.
Pritzker Neuropsychiatric Diso...
SSHRC
OMHF
MEC China
Nova Scotia Health Research Fo...
New Zealand Lottery Health Board
Dalhousie Uni
W. Garfield Weston Found. grant
USP
Health Bureau of Zhejiang Prov...
Nellie Ball Research Trust Fund
NBRP China
Canterbury Medical Research Fo...
Essel Found.
Psyadon pharmaceuticals
Medical Scientific Research Fo...
Found. of Shanghai Science and...
National Center for Responsibl...
California Tobacco-Related Dis...
Uni of Utah
Shanghai Leading Academic Disc...
Yale Uni
Shanghai Science & Technology ...
APA
NAM
China Mega-Project for Infecti...
NIDDK
NICHD
SKLID UNICEF
Multiple Sclerosis Society of ...
Tsinghua-Yue-Yuan Medical Scie...
Marriot Found.
HHMI
Spunk Fund Inc (New York)
AIHS
INPRFMDIES
Guangxi National Natural Scien...
Ministry of Health
973 China
National R&D Special Fund for ...
Emory Uni
ASC
Commonwealth Research Center o...
CANMAT
973 Program
Shanghai Science & Technology ...
CIHR
Ministry of Immigrant Absorpti...
Science and Technology Commiss...
OMA-MH
Uni o
Fundamental Research Funds for...
863 project
MOST China
SAMHSA
Peking Uni
National Science & Technology ...
Canadian Nurses Found.
Scientific Research Found. for...
Oriented Hundred Talents Progr...
USAMR
Manitoba Health Research Council
Ministry of Health
Klingenstein Third Generation ...
State Key Laboratory of Cognit...
Specialized Research Fund, China
Tourette Syndrome Association-...
NINR
Parkinson Society of Canada
FAPESP
USA
Science and Technology Plannin...
MRC
National Social Science Found....
Co
RRF
AbbVie
US-Israel
Binational
Science
F...
RGC
Shenzhen Bureau of Health
Qingdao Bureau of Science and ...
Duke Uni
Science and Technology Coopera...
UBC
Roswell Park Transdisciplinary...
National Infrastructure Progra...
China Postdoctoral Science Found
Uni of Washington
ABMRF
111 Project
Wenzhou Science and Technology...
Astellas
Uni Grants Committee of Hong K...
W T Grant Found.
Medicine and Health Science Te...
Uni of Auckland
Organization for Autism Research
NAAR
Hong Kong Jockey Club Charitie...
Hartford Hospital Research Pro...
Research Found. of Shanghai He...
Jazz
Pfizer
Foundation
John Simon Guggenheim Found.
Ministry of Chinese Science an...
CONACYT
Shanghai Committee of Science ...
France Found.
KNAW
CRC
South African Dept. of Health
National Insurance Institute o...
Actelion
NINDS
Chinese Ministry of Health
Hartford F
Israel National Institute for ...
Uni of China
Uni of Cape Town
National Cancer Institute of C...
Chinese Scholarship Council
Canadian Psychiatric Associati...
ADDDF
Croucher Found.
Shandong Provincial Outstandin...
Phil F. Jenkins Research Fund
Foundation of Chinese Academy ...
Pearson Center for Alcoholism ...
NSFC
Pacific Alzheimer Research Fou...
Hussman Found.
Tianjin research program of ap...
Medical Science Council
NIH
The Patrick and Catherine Weld...
Stavros S. Niarchos Found.
National Research Found. of So...
AD
Beijing
Municipal
Science
&
Te...
Inha
Uni
Research
Taiwan Bureau of National Heal...
INCT
South African Research Chairs ...
KOSEF
Johnson & Johnson Inc
Brazilian Ministry of HealthCa...
Korean Research Found.
Uni of Hong Kong
Israel Academy of Sciences and...
Harry and Doris Crossley Found.
Dept. of Psychiatry
National Institute of Occupati...
Ministry of Knowledge Economy ...
Katz Family Found.
Irving B. Harris Found.
NASA
Fondazione del Monte di Bologn...
National Brain Research Center
MOEHRD
Taipei City Govt. in Taiwan
Korean Centers for Disease Con...
National Research Found.
FAPESC
FAPERJ
Asan Institute for Life Sciences
Australian-Chinese Academy of ...
Catholic Medical Center Resear...
UNICEF
Fundo
de
Auxlio
aos
Docentes
...
SNUH
NSC
Taiwan
HRC
Universidade do Extremo Sul Ca...
Yuli Veterans Hospital
Korea Food and Drug Administra...
Seaver Found.
FA
VA
Medical Research Center
Uni of the Witwatersrand
PRONEX, Brazil
Instituto Cerebro e Mente-Brazil
Yonsei Uni
Samsung Medical Center
FDA
Ministry of Education
EGRIS
Epilepsy Found.
Korea Uni Grant
Croatian Ministry of Science
FRQS
Pusan National Uni Hospital
WCU MEST
Chang Gung Memorial Hospital i...
Ministry of Education
National Taiwan Uni Hospital
NIDCD
Piedmont Region of Italy
ABADHS
UNIFESP
Cure Alzheimers Fund
Asklepios-Med (Hungary)
McLean Private Donors Psychoph...
Found. of Gedeon Richter
Kenneth T. and Eileen L. Norri...
Novartis Found.
Intel Corporati
Brain Net Europe
Taipei Veterans General Hospit...
Inje Uni
Uni Medical Center Hamburg-Epp...
Academia Sinica
Althingi
Pfizer
RUSK Found.
CAPES
Korean Healthcare Technology R...
Konkuk Uni Research Found.
HCPA Shire
National Cheng Kung Uni Hospital
Found. of Hope
NSC
FAEPA
Fundacion Areces
A Lance Armstrong Found.
Sa
LOreal
Kaohsiung Medical Uni
Austrian Academy of Science
NHRI Taiwan Medice
DoH, Taiwan
INNT FINEP
Kai-Syuan Psychiatric Hospital
DFAPEMIG
AFIP
Roy
Otsuka
Abbott
SCDDSN
Mackay Memorial Hospital
Borderline Personality Disorde...
Ministry of Science
Daimler Benz Found. (Germany)
Atomic Energy Council of Taiwan
Kaohsiung Municipal Hsiao-Kang...
APIRE
PAHO
NRF
Fundacion Caja Madrid (Spain)
Bruce J. Anderson Found.
Philips
Cancer Research Center of Exce...
WHO
BMS
FAPERGS
Uni of Barcelona
Novartis
Found. Alfonso Martin Escudero
MHW Korea
China Medical Uni
Fondation Pierre Deniker
FIPE
Regional Ministry of Innovation
UK
Epilepsy
Research
Found.
DFID
Tel Aviv Un
Mutua Madrilena Found.
United Arab Emirates Uni
Basque Govt.
Medical Uni of Vienna
Taipei Medical Uni-Wan Fang Ho...
Far Eastern Memorial Hospital
Tri-service General Hospital F...
Cyberonics Inc
Mayo Clinic Foundation
ISF
IG MooDS
Uni of Bristol
Austrian National Bank
Parkinsons Disease Found.
EFF
Lilly
Taipei City Hospital Research
American Psychoanalytic Associ...
Regione Autonoma della Sardegn...
Gottfried und Julia Bangerter-...
Greek Ministry of Education
Jacobs Found. Switzerland
RETICS
Conchita Rabago Found.
Lundbeck
Found. Banco di Sardegna
Alfried Krupp von Bohlen und H...
DAAD
Schwaabe
HDF ISO
Fundacion Marques de Valdecilla
Autonomous Community of Madrid
Bristol-Myers Squibb Found.
Fundacion Marcelino Botin
La Fundacio La Marato de TV3
ISAN
Navarra Regional Govt.
MICINN
FWF
Fundacion La Caixa
Human Frontiers Science Program
FCT
Hertie Foundat
DFG
Uni of Rome
Uni of Leeds
CIBERER Valeant
UCB
beyondblue
IDIAP jordi Gol
IPA
Departament de Salut
AGAUR
CSIC
James S McDonnell Found.
Plan Nac. Sobre Drogas
Mission Interministerielle de ...
S
Janssen
Rockefeller Found.
Fundacion Alicia Koplowitz
DGPPN
Ministry of Cultural Affairs
CNPq Brazil
SENYFundaci / Fondation SENY
COST-Action
Xunta de Galicia
HEC of Pakistan
Ministry of Health of the Gene...
Fritz-Thyssen-Stiftung
Queensland Health
Elite Graduate Network of Bava...
UPV-EHU
US Fulbright Fellowship
Medtronic
Junta de Andalucia
Swiss National Research Fund
WT
CAM
Merz
Fundacion Espanola de Psiquiat...
Uni of the Basque Country
Rolf-Dierichs-Stiftung
BMBF
Alexander von Humboldt Researc...
Roche
GSK
Spanish Govt.
GdC
MEC, Spain
Volkswagen Found. (Germany)
CIEN
Bial Found.
MOSHE Poland
MINECO
Consejeria de Salud de la Junt...
Polish Academy of Sciences
Kyung-Hee Uni
Gulbenkian
Found.
S-R Found.
Social Ministry of the Federal...
CIBERNED NHMRC
ICREA Found.
Dept. of Health of the Govt. o...
German National Academic Found.
Swiss Federal In
SFI
AFI
EMBO
Uni of Essex
state Govt. of Bavaria
NHS England
Gates Cambridge Scholarship Tr...
Gobierno de Navarra (Spain)
Royal Netherlands Academy of A...
ARRS
Loterie Romande
CIPSM
Uni of Iceland
BHF UK
Andalusian Govt.
Hermann and Lilly Schilling Fo...
German Max Plan
Uni of Birmingham
British Medical Association
PB
Action Medical Research (UK)
Charles Uni in Prague
FIS
Czech Ministry of Education, Y...
Conselleria de Sanidad
German Ministry of Health
Unilever
Helse Nord RHF
EU
Ministry of the Health of the ...
MIWFT
Uni of London
HRB
Universitat Munchen
Procte
Uni of Heidelberg
Great Ormond Street Hospital C...
OTKA
P1
vital
Ltd
Guys and St Thomas Charitable ...
SNSF
Found. for Polish Science
Health Dept. of the Basque Cou...
NSW Health
Newcastle Uni
Schizophrenia Research Fund
Free State of Saxony
Else Kroner-Fresenius-Stiftung...
Uni Bochum
Deutsche Krebshilfe Research F...
Agency of the Academy of Scien...
Bavarian Ministry of Commerce
Uni of Jena
ERDF
Ludwig Maximilians Uni
Swiss Anorexia Nervosa Found.
Reina Sofia Found.
Uni of Manc
Consejeria de Educacion - Junt...
Psychiatry Research Trust
Arthritis Research Campaign
Big Lottery Fund
Baily Thomas Charitable Fund
Uni of Rostock
Medical Uni of Lodz
Dutch
Medical
Research
Council
European
Social
Fund
Uni of Lubeck
Uni of Bonn
Stifterverband fur die Deutsch...
Royal Society
Ministry of Science, Serbia
British Council
Health Found.
Young Investiga
NIHR
UKs Ministry of Defence
Sir Jules Thorn Charitable Trust
Estonian Ministry of Education...
Motor Neurone Disease Associat...
Scottish Mental Health Researc...
Isaac Newton Trust Cambridge
British Academy
Greek Ministry of Development
Hungarian Academy of Science
Berlin Brandenburgische Akadem...
Uni of Aberdeen
BBSRC
Waterloo Found.
German Cancer Aid
Nuffield Found.
DZNE
Alz. Society, UK
Uni of Leipzig
Landesstiftung Baden-Wurttemberg
Nutricia Research Found.
Hans und Ilse Breuer Stiftung
Hartmann Muller Found.
WOS
Krakow, Poland
ISAO
EPSRC
Brain Research T
Australian National Institute ...
Prinses Beatrix Fonds
Neuroscience Research Charitab...
Uni of Ulm
Ferring Pharmaceuticals Inc
UK Ministry of Justice
Brain Exit Scholarship
Leiden Uni
Shirley Found.
Uni of Nottingham
GACR
Estonian Science Found. Grant
Gatsby Charitable Found.
Robert Bosch Found.
Uni of Rotterdam
Cambridge Overseas Trust
redIAPP
Age UK
Gerencia Regional de Salud de ...
Autistica
Fondation Leducq
Uni of Salamanca
Action on Addiction
NCCR
Hungarian Ministry of Health
Dutch Brain Association
Ludwig Boltzmann Institute of ...
RFBR VWS
RIED
EPFL
NHF
World Bank
WICN
Romanian Ministry for Educatio...
Institute of Psychiatry
Uni of Southampton
WORD
Welsh Assembly Govt.
RIDE
NEURODE
SINAPSE ECNP
MS Society of Great Britain an...
Slovenian Ministry for research
Netherlands Brain Found.
UK
Comic Relief
BUPA Found
Academy of Medical Sciences (UK)
Muscular Dystrophy Campaign
Uni of Glasgow
TAMOP, Hungary
Leverhulme Trust
Universities of Tubingen
Hirnliga
Amsterdam Brain Imaging Platform
Research Councils UK Fellowship
CIBM
Henry Smith Charity & Epilepsy...
Czech Science Found.
Christian Medical College
Mind Science Found.
NPSA, UK
Hersenstichting
La Sapienza Uni
Glasgow Centre for Population ...
Fondation Jerome Lejeune (Fran...
AFM
German Federal Ministry for Fa...
British Geriatrics Society
The Sophia Childrens Hospital ...
RIVM NWO
Municipality of Rotterdam
Dutch Ministry of Defence
Greek State Scholarships Found.
CVZ
Society for Support of Researc...
Scottish Funding Council
Norwegian Financing mechanism
FNRS
NeFF
European Scientific Advisory B...
Stichting tot Steun VCVGZ
Center for Translational Molec...
Bangor
Higher Education Funding Counc...
Veneto Region
AIRC
UK Health Protection Agency
EFSD
Universite de Strasbourg
Sophia Found. for Medical Rese...
Uni of Milan WODC
Que
NPRI
Stanley Thomas Johnson Found.
Diabetes UK Project
Swiss Academy of Medical Scien...
UK Centre for Tobacco Control ...
Organon
Uni of Liege (Belgium)
CNCR
Dutch National Asthma Found.
Dutch
Top-Institute
Pharma
France
Erasmus Uni Medical Centre
Cardiff Uni
DeNDRoN
Netherlands Ministry of Educat...
Tech
NCA
AnEUploidy project
PHRC
Internationaal Parkinson Fonds...
Uni of Helsinki
Fondat
Reta Lila Weston Institute for...
Erasmus Medical Centre
Progetto Fondazione Roma
Dutch Govt.
NESDA
CNRS
Dutch Diabetes Research Found.
NISCHR CRC
Innovatiefonds Zorgverzekeraars
BBMRI -NL
Fonds NutsOhra
ARC
INSERM
Carnegie Found.
Fonds Leon Fredericq
GGZ Rivierdumen
Scottish Charity
Fonds Psychische Gezondheid
Social Sciences Council
Regio
Alzheimer Nederland grant
UPMC
VU Amsterdam
Stichting VUmc fonds
K.U. Leuven Uni
OZR
Lentis
Radboud Uni Nijmegen Medical C...
Ghent Uni Hospital
ANR
NPRI
FWO-V
Flemish Govt.
Stichting Dioraphte
Uni of Groningen
Netherlands Consortium for Hea...
nEUROsyn
Jeantet F
Association France-Alzheimer
VIB
FIRB
NIVEL
Trimbos Institute
UNESCO
IQ Healthcare
Dutch Cancer Society
Ipsen
Fondazione Cariver
GGZ inGeest research Dept.
BELSPO
Slovak Ministry of Education
Global Fund
Arkin
CHU Montpellier
GGZ Friesland
SAO-FRMA
Slovak Research and Developmen...
Universite Claude Bernard Lyon1
La Region Aquitaine
Uni of Paris
Medical Research Found. Antwerp
MRES
Uni of Bo
IWT
program Investissements davenir
GGNet
Uni of Torino
Conseils Regionaux dAquitaine ...
Uni of Tur
ENGAGE project
VSB Fonda
NHG
Neurosearch
Uni Hospital of Strasbourg
VEGA
IREB FMRE
FRC
GGZ Drenthe
Conseil Regional Aquitaine
Eli Lilly Research
MGEN
AFSSAPS
GGZ Mental Health Institute
Utrecht Uni
Ente Cassa di Risparmio
Wyeth Found.
GGZ Buitenamstel-Geestgronden
Medical Found. Queen Elisabeth
Found. Orange
Fondation Plan Alzheimer
Thomas Riellaerts research fund
Psychiatric Association of Tur...
La Fondation de France
EMGO + Institute for Health an...
Fondazione Cassa di Risparmio
SBIC
Region Ile-de-France
Region Rhone-Alpes (France)
Region Nord-Pas de Calais (Fra...
IMPRT
EDF-GDF
Institut Pasteur Lille
Stichting Johanna KinderFonds
FRM Found.
College de France
Uni of Lille
GGZinGeest
Uni of Antwerp
Dutch Alzheimers Society
CIDA
Dutch MS Research Found.
Associa
Dept. of Pharmaceutical Scienc...
Maastricht Uni
LUMC
LECMA
Council of Region Burgundy
GGZ De Grote Rivieren
Association France Parkinson
Uni of Padua
Brain Found. (The Netherlands)
La Fondation pour la Recherche...
Conseil General de la Giro
Scientific Fund W. Gepts UZ Br...
Associazione
Ingeest
Associazione Amici del Centro ...
Altrecht
Rivierduinen
Dijk en Duin
Academic Psychiatric Center AMC
Ligue contre le Cancer
Prins Clauscentrum Sittard
GGZ Eindhoven
GGZ Noord Holland Noord
Gis - Maladies rares
GGZ Midden-Brabant
Mondriaan Zorggroep
Meerkanten
RIAGG Roermond
PZ Sancta Maria Sint-Truiden
RIAGG Amersfoort
PC Ziekeren Sint-Truiden
Dimence
OPZ Rekem
GGZ Noord- Midden Limburg
Universitair Centrum Sint-Joze...
Maastricht: GGZ Overpelt
GGZ Oost-Brabant
Mapping the mental health research funding landscape 25
GO Sequencing Project
Mashhad Uni of Medical Sciences
Robson Family
Capital Group Companies Charit...
Brain Mapping Support Found.
Brain Mapping Medical Research...
Tamkin Found.
Jennifer Jones-Simon Found.
SSHRC
The Sidney Kimmel Center for P...
Pierson-Lovelace Found.
American Sleep Research Societ...
North-star Fund
King Pharmaceuticals
Ahmanson Found.
FINECO
American Association of Uni Wo...
Springer
Anclote Found.
ughlin Centre
Uni of Tennessee
Chulalongkorn Uni
RTI International
MultiHealth Systems
Elgart Fund on Brain Aging
Canadian Institutes for Advanc...
Alliance-Biosecure Found.
sway
Gordon Fund for Eating Disorders
LPFCH
Cincinnati Childrens Hospital ...
Hastings Center
Herald House
Case Western Reserve Uni
y
John Wiley and Sons
Uni of New Mexico
Israel Anti Drug and Alcohol A...
All Childrens Hospital Researc...
American Academy of Pediatrics...
Brigham & Womens Hospital
Endo Pharmaceuticals
National Health Research and D...
US AID
American Medical Association
Beatrice Surovell Haskell Fund...
Pritzker Consortium
e
W W Norton Company
Minster
California Health Care Found.
Annie E. Casey Found.
New England Research Institutes
Brown Uni
Lippincott Williams and Wilkins
Pennsylvania State Uni
MMC
Pediatric
CJD
Leadership Education in Adoles...
a Memorial Foundalion
Cambridge Uni Press
Uni of Buenos Aires
Duke Endowment
Uni of Arizona
RJG Found.
Physicians Post-Graduate Press
Global Fund
Mohegan Sun Casino
CME Institute/Physicians Postg...
NCCDPHP
West Virginia Uni
Oxford Uni Press
Center
for
Mental
Health
Servi...
Open Society Institute
KZ
Baycrest Found.
Uni of Arkansas
Donaghue Found.
Consortiuum of Multiple Sclero...
FSCD WSU
th Canada
Aspect Medical
Arizona State Uni
Institute for Mental Health Re...
Sage
Sigma Tau
Heinz Found.
Kaiser Found. Research Institute
Tourettes Action
earch Inst...
NEDA
Shriners Hospitals for Childre...
Uni of Nebraska
Govt. of Ontario
Brigham Young Uni
Charles Hood Found.
Pharma Neuro Boost
National
Academy
of
Neuropsych...
Allon
US Dept. of Education
Klarman Family Found.
NDSEG Purdue
State of Florida
Northwestern Uni
NIOSH
Adelson Medical Research Found.
Uni of Cincinnati
.
Uni of Calgary
Indiana Uni
CTSI
G. Harold and Leila Y. Mathers...
Obsessive Compulsive Found.
MICHR
OBSSR
Oregon Health and Science Uni
American Legacy Found.
American Psychiatric Publishing
National Sleep Found.
International OCD Found.
Xavier Uni
COGEND
Commonwealth Fund
CEM
GENEVA Coordinating Center
Neuronetics Inc
Betsy and Jonathan Blattmachr ...
TRF
ASLA
NIDRR GENEVA
pi
Fran and Ray Stark Found. Fund...
CCFA
Uni of Toronto
Thrasher Research Fund
Dept. of Education
ARCS Found.
Harvard Catalyst
Atkins Found.
FAMRI
dation
Institute for Research on Gamb...
David Judah Fund
The Spencer Found.
National Institute of Justice
Uni of Colorado
New York Uni
Uni of Iowa
Michigan State Uni
MOHLTC
Sir John Templeton Found.
Genentech
Uni
of
Alabama
Hogg Found. for Mental Health
Peter F. McManus Charitable Tr...
AGRE
Uni of Manitoba
WM Keck Found.
John Merck Scholars Fund
ATSDR
Sidney R. Baer
Leonard Levy Found.
Sexual Medicine Society of Nor...
California HIV/AIDS Research P...
Uni of Georgia
Office of juvenile Justice and...
Bowman Family Found. award
Price Found.
National Center for Injury Pre...
DSRTF
VHA Career Development Award
undation
Guilford Press
Greenwall Found. Faculty
Childrens Hospital of Philadel...
State of Connecticut
Childrens Hospital Boston
Uni of Minnesota
Trichotillomania Learning Centre
NHGRI
Ontario Graduate Scholarship
Breast Cancer Research Found.
Mahidol Uni
Hilda and Preston Davis Found.
Stanford Uni
Uni of Miami
Blue Cross Blue Shield of Mich...
Uni of Florida
HNRC CFAR NIH
American Nurses Found.
Louisiana Board of Regents grant
MCHB
Highland
Street
Found.
Ohio
State
Uni
Shirley and Jack Goldberg Trust
Uni of South Florida
The Gerber Found.
Clinical Science Research and ...
Teva
Uni at Buffalo
GCRC
Abdi Ibrahim
Josiah Macy
MIND Research Network
USUHS
National
Football League Chari...
Univeristy of California
Autism Consortium of Boston
APF CMS
Kane Family Found.
Klingenstein Found.s
Arkansas Biosciences Institute
Cousins Center for Psychoneuro...
NIDA
Office of AIDS Research
CTSA
New York Community Trust
NSERC
Loyola Uni
Environmental Protection Agency
CFI
Doris Duke-Charitable Found.
Diana Helis Henry Medical Rese...
PHS
Belmont
Connecticut Mental Health Center
Hartwell Found.
CIDAR
CDPH
Carman Trust
US Administration on Aging
Charles A. Dana and Buster Fou...
Uni of Connecticut
DOE
Clinical Neurosciences Divisio...
.
IDDRC
NIDCR
ARRA
Philip Morris-USA
Kessler Found. Research Center
PEPFAR
DVBIC
Ford Found.
David and Lucile Packard Found.
Cornell Uni
ONDCP
MIC
State of Michigan
CAMH
AFTD
CTSA
Hospira
The SCAN Found.
NABI Biopharmaceuticals
Pittsburgh Found.
Joseph Drown Found.
Uni of Kentucky
Uni of Ottawa
Attias Family Found.
NKT R&D China
DHS CDC
NCATS
Nancy Kirwan Heart Research Fund
NIGMS
Uni of Oklahoma
Medical College of Wisconsin
Forest
NHTSA
Henry M. Jackson Found. for th...
National Institute for Mental ...
US NSF
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania D...
IMHRO UCI
ALSAC
Uni of Pittsburgh
Sidell-Kagan Found.
Mount
Zion
Health
Fund
Massachusetts
General
Hospital
Pittsburgh Claude D. Pepper Ol...
Uni of Louisville
of Vermont
NIMHD
AACAP
Sanchez Found.s
Arthritis Found.
Burroughs Wellcome Fund
Uni of Southern California
Keck Found.
Koret Family Found.
Robert Packard Center for ALS ...
Bowles Center for Alcohol Stud...
RMC
Prechter Found.
John W. Alden Trust
NYCDOHMH
Weinberg Found.
Uni of South Carolina
JPB Medical Found.
Fundacion INECO
Ischemia Research and Educatio...
Rush Uni
VCU
NIPI
NCI
Medical Research Service of th...
McBean Family Found.
DHHS
ACISR UNC
NCCAM
Mount Sinai School of Medicine
Research Retirement Found.
State of Texas
American Cancer Society
olumbia Uni
NCRR
Oklahoma
Center
for
the
Advanc...
MSFHR
NIAID
Uni of Houston
US Govt.
American Diabetic Association
MIND Institute
Uni of Rochester
Jane Botsford Johnson Found.
UNAM-DGAPA-PAPIIT
Uni of Chicago
BSF
NEI
Johns Hopkins Uni
Jewish Community Federation of...
UIC
Alfred P Sloan Research
American Geriatrics Society
USEPA
Epilepsy Research Found. of Am...
Uni of Wisconsin
James A. Haley Veterans Hospital
Uni of Malaya
Litebook Company Ltd
Brookdale Found.
Uni of Massachusetts
Rochester Epidemiology Project
Fragile X Found.
Hellman Family Found.
Larry L Hillblom Found.
Boston Uni
Vanderbilt Uni
Leukemia&Lymphoma Society
State of Connecticut
ADRC
Huntingtons Study Group
Peter Emch Family Found.
RWJF
Ortho McNeil
Starr Found.
ADRC
Muscular Dystrophy Association...
University of California
Genzyme
Irish Govt.
Ban-bury Fund
Barnes- Jewish Hospital Found.
Science Found. Arizona
CURE
Foundation
NIAAA
Yerkes Research Center
CRCM CTCRI
Uni of Missouri
Hope Center for Neurological D...
USA
Banner Alzheimers Found.
Harvard Uni
Research to Prevent Blindness ...
Uni of Kebangsaan Malaysia
Uni of Virginia
Washington Uni
MacArthur Foundation
Uni of Kansas
New York State Dept. of Health
Woodruff Fund
Uni of Pennsylvania
Johnnie B. Byrd
NHLBI
Multiple Sclerosis Society
AFSP
Uni of Maryland
Ellison Medical Found.
McKnight Research Found.
SFARI
Hillblom Found.
CurePSP Found.
Mangurian Found.
International Parkinson Found.
DNI
Norwegian Cancer Society
Brain Research Found.
NIAMS
Irish Life plc
CIRM
Donald
W.
Reynolds
Found.
Uni of Toyama
Feinstein Institute for Medica...
Baylor College of Medicine
Anonymous Medical Found.
State of California
CART Foundation
AHA
NLM
ONR
Helen Bader Found.
Cleveland Found.
Icelandic Heart Association
FONDECYT
Atlantic Philanthropies
US Social Security Administrat...
Autism Speaks
USA
Trustees of the Blanchette Hoo...
Stephen D. Bechtel
AFaR
Tau Research Consortium
Elan
ADCS
FONDAP Amgen
Banner Sun Health Research Ins...
Irma T. Hirschl Award
ADAA
AAQI
FIRCA
FRAXA Research Found.
U.S. Navy Bureau of Medicine a...
Berkman Charitable Trust
Heinz C Prechter Bipolar Resea...
Barrow Neurological Found.
John Douglas French Alzheimers...
State of Arizona
ALS/CVS Therapy Alliance
NASA NCC
American Parkinson's Disease A...
Wallace Research Found.
NIBIB
BBRF
HFSP
UGC, India
IEDC
Biogen
Found. for Physical Therapy
MOHE, Malaysia
Prescott Family Initiative of ...
The William and Flora Hewlett ...
American Academy of Neurology ...
Found. Synapsys
NLMFF
BrightFocus Found.
Commonwealth of Kentucky Resea...
Robert and Clarice Smith Fello...
JDRF
Gilead
FONDEF
HDRF
CSIR, India
BHARE
Foundation
Extendicare
Found.
Colciencias
Arizona
Biomedical
Research
Co...
NIMH
MES
ADRC
ion
Boehringer Ingelheim
Arrillaga Found.
Ministry of Health
Glenn Found. for Medical Resea...
DST, India
USDA
ICMR
Dana Foundation
Research Institute of the Norw...
Northern
California
Institute
...
Alz
Assoc.
CHDI
Arizona Dept. of Health Services
Wyncote Found.
American Australian Association
Silvio
O.
Conte
Center
St.
Jude
Medical
Inc.
anofi
NIEHS
Washington State Uni
Robert A. Welch Found. Grant
MIFAB
Illinois Dept. of Public Healt...
Ronald Philip Griffith Fellows...
Wake Forest Uni
VicHealth
CONICYT
ANU
yal Society Wolfson Merit Aw...
Singapore Millennium Found.
National Medical Research Coun...
March of Dimes USA
Cancer Council of Victoria
New South Wales Health
New York State through Office ...
Siemens
AHAF
Oregon Clinical and Translatio...
Skaggs Institute for Chemical ...
Queensland Dept. of Health
SRI
National Palliative Care Resea...
MJ Fox Foundation
Bill and Melinda Gates Found.
Fidelity Found.
German Parkinsons Disease Asso...
Regional Health Research Found...
Autism Research Institute
Roskilde County
Geelong Region Medical Researc...
AZ
Fondazione IDEA
AFOSR
ni
Maryland Stem Cell Research Fund
Danish National Board of Health
NIA
Solvay
Victorian
State
Govt.
Research
Capacity
Building
Grant
Aalborg
Psychiatric
Hospital
Uni
of
Sydney
Aus
Govt.
Dept.
Health
Medivation Inc
MC
National Council for Mental He...
Israeli Ministry of Health
Bayer
Nepean Medical Research Found.
Norwegian Ministry of Health a...
Baxter
Neurosciences Victoria
Dainippon-Sumitomo Pharma
Uni of Melbourne
Monash Uni
Defense Science and Technology...
Theodore and Vada Stanley Found.
Viertel Charitable Found.
Victorian Trauma Found. general
The Mason Found.
Helsefonden
Swiss Federal Office of Public...
SMRI
Community Pharmacy Found.
OA
Akershus Uni Hospital
Beckley Found.
Norwegian Directorate of Healt...
Robert C. Borwell Endowment Fund
USM Kempe Found.
A*STAR
Aust. Rotary Health
EHDN
Norwegian Uni of Science and T...
Western Norway Regional Health
ANZ Mason Foundation
Swiss Alzheimers Disease Assoc...
APF
Danish Research Council
Uni of Adelaide
FONACIT
B
Uni Hospital Basel
Uni of Wollongong
Woods Family Trust
Norwegian Found. for Health an...
Victorian Health Promotion Fou...
and Mental Health
Victorian Neurotrauma Initiative
KCL
Sackler Found.
GE-Healthcare
Uni of Zurich
Macquarie Group Found.
New South Wales Dept. of Healt...
Hunter Medical Research Instit...
Danish Health Insurance Fund
Norwegian Parkinson Disease As...
HDSA
Reckitt Benckiser
MNDRI Australia
Merck
Royal Brisbane and Womens Hosp...
Neuroscience Research Australia
Innlandet Hospital Trust resea...
Colonial Found.
ARC Takeda
Ministry
of Science Technology...
Eisai
Wyeth
Macquarie Uni
Foundation of NIH
ESRC UK
Uni of Bergen
ANZ Charitable Trust
Ramsay Health Care Australia
Flinders Uni
Josef and Haldis Andresens Legat
Helse Vest RHF PhD grant
F
FES
Uni of Muenster
GIF AR UK
Fondazione Gaetano e Mafalda L...
St. Patricks Uni Hospital Dublin
Swedish Dept. of Higher Educat...
Ian Potter Found.
South-East Norway Health Autho...
Norwegian Council for Mental H...
FaHCSIA
Olga Mayenfisch Found.
ASRB
Deakin Uni
Uni of Queensland
RHA
Uni of Newcastle
Pratt Found.
Ludvig og Sara Elsass Found.
Norwegian Womens Public Health...
Australian Govt.
Aachen Uni
nstitute of Tec...
DVA
Wenner-Gren Found.
APA UK DH
National Heart Found. of Austr...
Cancer Council NSW
Helen Macpherson Smith Trust
J. O. and J. R. Wicking Trust
Danish Medical Association Res...
Singapore General Hospital
Uni of Konstanz
Velux Found. Switzerland
Alzheimers Australia
Dutch Kidney Found.
Australian Brewers Found.
NRC
Centre of Excellence for Alzhe...
Rebecca L. Cooper Medical Rese...
MRC UK
Uni of New South Wales
Parkinsons Disease Society UK
nck Society
APHCRI
Healthway
Norwegian Institute of Public ...
Uni of Tromso
Alcohol Education and Rehabili...
FKK
Biomedical Research Council
Liaison Committee
Uni Mental Health Research Ins...
NSW Institute of Psychiatry Re...
South Australian Dept. of Health
er and Gamble Pharmaceuti...
Helmholtz
US Agency for Health Care Poli...
Uni College London
Augustinus Fonden
Centre for Child and Adolescen...
Servier
CRUK
Uni of Oslo
CSIRO
Austin Hospital Medical Resear...
BRACE
Danish Medical Research Council
Dementia
Research Fund of the Central D...
Uni of Singapore
British Health and Safety Exec...
Uni of Cambridge
BioMarin
RCUK
Danish National Psychiatric Re...
UWA
Uni of Aarhus
Scottish Govt.
Bernard Wolfe Health Neuroscie...
chester
McCusker Found.
American Epilepsy Society
Murdoch Childrens Research Ins...
John and Birthe Meyer Found.
Egmont Found.
Leenaards Found. Switzerland
Charles Wolfson Charitable Trust
Brain Resource
Stanley Center for Psychiatric...
Ministry of High Education and...
Danish Ministry of the Interio...
MIUR
National Assembly for Wales
ator Award
HSE, Ireland
SIEF
Danish Agency for Science
Ivan Nielsens Found.
Tryg Fonden
Raine Found. for Medical Resea...
FAS
Worzner Found.
National MS-Society
iDEA
AusAID
Health Insurance Found.
Dunhill Medical Trust
Bank of Sweden Tercentenary Fo...
Uni of Copenhagen
Research Council of Lithuania
Italian PRIN 2007
Komen Breast Cancer Found. Award
Aase and Ejnar Danielsens Fund
Uni of Western Sydney
ERAB
EU
Jack Brockhoff Foundation
Uni of Edinburgh
Women and Infants Research Fou...
NOVO Nordisk Found.
Danish Cancer Society Research...
Danish Council for Independent...
Trust
Dagmar Marshalls Fund
Swedish Prison and Probation S...
Innovative Medicines Initiative
ERC
Cancer Council of Queensland
Enterprise Ireland
Myer Found.
Ulleval Uni Hospital
Spanish Ministry of Social Aff...
Curtin Uni of Technology
SRC
Uni
of
Sheffield
Norman Collisson Found.
Lundbeck
Foundation
Danish
Heart
Found.
Danish Working Environment Res...
Copenhagen
Uni
Hospital
Danish Ministry of Health and ...
Uni of Oxford
HUBIN Project
PSP association
Uni of Bologna
Knut and Alice Wallenberg Found.
Danish Centre for Evaluation a...
Copenhagen Council Research Fo...
Pears Found.
Royal College of Physicians/Du...
Uni of Amsterdam
Beckett-Found.
Uni of Tasmania
Novo Nordisk
Swedish Society for Medical Re...
RAS
A.P. Moller Found.
Royal
Swedish
Academy
of
Scien...
IRCSET
EM Cymru
Telethon
Conseil General des Alpes-Mari...
International College of OC Sp...
Swedish State Support for Clin...
Clothworkers Found.
d.
Mother and Child Found.
Wallenberg Found.
Linkoping Uni Hospital
Manchester Mental Health and S...
Stockholm Stress Centre
Reta Lila Weston Trust for Med...
AHRC UK
FRM
Italian Ministry of Health
Swedish Parkinson Found.
Wolfson Trust
Uni of Lausanne
Soderstrom Konigska Found.
Sahlgrenska Academy
Shiraz Uni
Hjarnfonden
Telstra Research Found.
Swedish Childrens Cancer Fund
Regione Lombardia
Uni of Catania
Bettencourt-Schueller Found.
SIDA
National Board of Forensic Med...
Alz. Foundation, Sweden
SNF
ESF
ALF
Migraine Research Fund
y
Swedish Childhood Cancer Society
Fondazione Cariplo
Handlanden Hjalmar Svenssons F...
Queensland Uni of Technology
Uppsala
Uni
French Ministry of Education a...
Karolinska Inst.
Movement Disorder Society
Swedish National Board for Hea...
Stiftelsen Gamla Tjanarinnor
Federazione Italians Giuoco Ca...
IRCCS
r Uni
Istituto Superiore di Sanita
Swedish National Institute of ...
European Federation of Neurolo...
VINNOVA
Italian Institute of Technology
Bror Gadelius Fund
DCRC2
ARSEP, France
eensland State Govt.
Adlerbertska
Research
Found.
Academy of Finland
Swedish Brainpower
Swedish Brain Found.
Hjalmar Svenssons Found.
Thurings Found.
Soderberg Found.
FONDATION FYSSEN
Imperial College London
Wilhelm and Martina Lundgren R...
Vardal Research Found.
Swedish federal Govt.
Gun and Bertil Stohnes Stiftelse
Swedish Found. for Strategic R...
Umea Uni
hnology Strategy Board Gran...
ECU La Trobe Uni
Axel Linders Stiftelse
Sjobring Fund
Svenska Lakaresallskapet
Medical Research Council of so...
The Nicol Found.
tion FondaMental
Sir Charles Gardner Hospital
Lund Uni
Torsten och Ragnar Soderbergs ...
Uni of Cologne
Uni of Padova
Marta and Nicke Nasvell Found....
Goteborg Medical Society
Brain Found.
ACT Health NHR
AriSLA
Fondazione CARIPARO
Kuopio Uni Hospital
Sigrid Juselius
TUBITAK
Ake-Wiberg Found.
Demensfonden
Linnea and Josef Carlsson Found.
Sallskapet Bar-navard
Uni of Oulu
one-Piemonte
Ingabritt and Arne Lundberg re...
Compagnia di San Paolo Torino ...
Monzino Found.s
FISM CNR
SRA
Finnish Found. for Alcohol Stu...
Swedish Psychiatry Found.
Swedish Medical Society
Istanbul Uni
Finnish Work Environment Fund
Gustav and Victoria Found.
Nordic Centre of Excellence in...
Skane county councils research...
Found.
Italian Telethon Found.
AFA Insurance Company
RNM
Biocenter Finland
Albert Pahlsson Found.
CogState Ltd
Loo och Hans Ostermans Found.
Bertil Hallstens Forskningssti...
CNAMTS
Tekes
Swedish Royal Bank Tercentenni...
Ahlens Found.
rona
Lindhaga Found.
AXA Research Fund
Trolle-Wachtmeister Found. for...
Uni of Eastern Finland
Magnus Bergvall Found.
AfAR
Crafoord Found.
Canberra Hospital Specialists ...
Swedish Heart Lung Found.
Regional Govt.s of Aquitaine
cNEUPRO
Finnish Cultural Found.
Austin Health
Solstickan Found.
Jalmari and Rauha Ahokas Found.
ordeaux
Sapienza Uni of Rome
Social Insurance Institution
Sweden
Royal
Physiographic
Society
Gillbergska
Found.
EVO grant (Finland)
Yrjo Jahnsson Found.
rku
Polish State Committee for Sci...
Gothenburg Dental Society
Health Committee, Vastra Gotal...
UniGe
FORSS
KI Found.s
Finnish-Swedish Medical Associ...
Signe and Ane Gyllenberg Found.
Stiftelsen Psykiatriska Forskn...
Lars Hierta Memorial Found.
Emil Aaltonen Found.
Found.
Juho Vainio Found.
Finnish Medical Found.
Research Found. for the Orion ...
Stiftelsen Olle Engkvist Byggm...
First of May Annual Flower Cam...
Ella and Georg Ehrnrooth Found.
Regione Toscana Health Authority
EuroBiobank
Ministry of Social Affairs and...
Sven-Jerring Fond Found.
Progetto
Regione
Lombardia
City of Kuopio
Tehran University of Medical S...
Fondazione Mariani
Estonian Govt.
Regione Piemonte
Paivikki and Sakari Sohlberg F...
Ing.
Cesare
Cusan
Uni of Ferrara
THL,
Finland
Finnish
National
Graduate
Scho...
Jenny
and
Antti
Wihuri
Found.
...
Finnish Diabetes Research Fund
Paulo Found.
Finnish Ministry of Education ...
Finnish Found. for Pediatric R...
Finnish Medical Society
Pirkanmaa Hospital District Re...
The Helsinki Biomedical Gradua...
Tampere Uni
ation pour la Recherche ...
Uni of Tampere
Paavo Nurmi Found.
Programma Strategico
Finnish Found. for Cardiovascu...
Finska LAkaresAllskapet
Finnish Dental Society
Finnish National Graduate Scho...
Finlands Slot Machine Associat...
onde
Alma and K.A. Snellman Found.
e per la Ricerca su...
Maire Tapola Found.
Finnish Child Psychiatric Rese...
Folkhalsan Research Found.
Saud Uni
p Council
ou...
KACST
Qatar National Research Fund-Q...
Arvo and Lea Ylppo Found.
Samfundet Folkhalsan in Finland
Tampere Tuberculosis Found.
Hong Kong Polytechnic Uni
26
Mapping the global mental health research funding system
Figure 2-17
Network of co-acknowledged funders – neurodegenerative and
cognition disorders (coloured by modularity class)
National Key Technologies R&D ...
NSFC
BBRF
ADNI
MEST Korea
NSERC
A*STAR
James S McDonnell Foundation
US NSF
Dana Foundation
NIDA
ADDDF
State of Arizona
NRF Korea
ARC
Pacific Alzheimer Research Fou...
973 China
NIBIB
US PHS
CIHR
NHMRC
CNRS
FRQS
MHW Korea
DOE
NIDCD
NIGMS
MEXT
SFI
Larry L Hillblom Foundation
HDSA
NIAID
University of California
US DOD
John A. Hartford Foundation
JSPS
CNPq Brazil
Lilly
VWS
Novartis
FIS
FONDECYT
ISAO
Alz Assoc.
MINECO
MICINN
ERC
Kuopio University Hospital
Karolinska Institutet
AR UK
EU
AFI
Swedish Alzheimer Association
NIHR
BBSRC
ALF, Sweden
Stiftelsen Gamla Tjanarinnor
FWO-V
Flemish Government
GSK
CIBERNED
Michael J Fox Foundation for P...
EPSRC
MEC, Spain
IUAP, Belgium
NRC
FAS Sweden
BHF UK
SRC
Gun and Bertil Stohnes Stiftelse
Alzheimer Foundation in Sweden
ESRC UK
DST, India
NHS England
UK Department of Health
Academy of Finland
Roche Research Foundation
Mayo Alzheimers Disease Resear...
CONICET
NWO
Lundbeck
NSC Taiwan
FCT Portugal
Mayo Clinic Foundation
AHA
PHRC
DFG
MRC UK
CHDI
FAPES
CAPES
FRM
Swedish Brainpower
CONACYT
Association France-Alzheimer
Ministry of Science and Higher...
NIA
NIMH
MHLW Japan
NINR
NHLBI
Eisai
MIUR
Ricerca Finalizzata and Ricerc...
AHAF
John Douglas French Alzheimers...
ASC
Alzheimer Society, UK
ADRC
VA
INSERM
NIH
Merck
Janssen
WT
NINDS
DHHS
ANR
Canada Research Chair
AFaR
NCI
BMBF
Alzheimers Australia
NICHD
NCRR
SNSF
Pfizer
HDF USA
Mapping the mental health research funding landscape 27
Figure 2-18
Network of co-acknowledged funders – depressive, anxiety and
personality disorders (coloured by modularity class)
MacArthur Foundation
FIRCA
RWJF
NINR
US PHS
Pfizer Foundation
NIDA
NIA
NINDS
Ministry of Health
MICINN
NIH
VA
Academy of Finland
SNSF
GSK
MIUR
MHW Korea
Pfizer
NIMH
MRC UK
NSFC
VU Amsterdam, Netherlands
NHS England
US NSF
US DOD
NIHR
ESRC UK
NIAAA
DHHS
MEXT
FIS
NCRR
EU
MHLW Japan
US CDC
NICHD
NCI
NRC
NHLBI
PAHO
973 China
CIHR
AFSP
Lundbeck
Novartis
FRQS
Roche Research Foundation
Canada Research Chair
SRC
OMHF
Lilly
FAPES
SMRI
BBRF
NCCAM
NSC Taiwan
BMBF
AstraZeneca
CNPq Brazil
Lundbeck Foundation
FAS Sweden
NWO
NHMRC
CAPES
DFG
WT
28
Mapping the global mental health research funding system
Figure 2-19
Network of co-acknowledged funders – substance use and addictive
disorders (coloured by modularity class)
NCI
US CDC
NCRR
FIRCA
RWJF
NICHD
NIMH
MHLW Japan
DHHS
NIAAA
MEXT
Academy of Finland
Pfizer
Cancer Research UK
US PHS
VA
University of California
NIAID
BBRF
NWO
ESRC UK
NIHR
WT
MRC UK
WHO
BMBF
GSK
EU
Australian Govt.
CIHR
NSC Taiwan
NIH
ABMRF
MSFHR
MEC, Spain
FAS Sweden
CNPq Brazil
NHMRC
SRC
SNSF
FIS
NSFC
ARC
DFG
MICINN
NIDA
NIA
Mapping the mental health research funding landscape 29
Figure 2-20
Network of co-acknowledged funders – neurodevelopmental
disorders (coloured by modularity class)
Lilly
ESRC UK
WT
NIHR
NSERC
CNPq Brazil
ARC
Shire
NSFC
CIHR
NHS England
JSPS
NICHD
MEXT
NIDCD
SFARI
MHLW Japan
MRC UK
BMBF
US NSF
US CDC
NIH
MICINN
NHMRC
NWO
DFG
Autism Speaks
NCRR
BBRF
INSERM
FWO-V
DHHS
ANR
VA
NSC Taiwan
FIS
Telethon
NAAR
Autism Research Institute
EU
SNSF
NIMH
NIDA
Academy of Finland
NIAAA
MIUR
NIEHS
SRC
NRC
NINDS
30
Mapping the global mental health research funding system
Figure 2-21
Network of co-acknowledged funders – schizophrenia, bipolar and
other psychotic disorders (coloured by modularity class)
Lundbeck
NRC
Janssen
Academy of Finland
Lilly
BMS
NSC Taiwan
SRC
US PHS
VA
AstraZeneca
Roche Research Foundation
BMBF
MHW Korea
Pfizer
MIUR
NIMH
MICINN
EU
NCRR
NIH
Harvard University
DHHS
NIDA
NIA
FRQS
SRI
GSK
MEXT
NHS England
JSPS
NWO
CNPq Brazil
MHLW Japan
NHMRC
MRC UK
PHRC
INSERM
SNSF
CAPES
OMHF
DFG
NIHR
CIHR
973 China
SMRI
NSW Health, Australia
NIAAA
FIS
NSFC
Lundbeck Foundation
BBRF
WT
Mapping the mental health research funding landscape 31
Figure 2-22
Network of co-acknowledged funders – “Adolescent”, “Child”, “infant” and
“young adult” categories in MeSH (coloured by modularity class)
NINDS
NIDDK
US NSF
DHHS
NIDCD
SFARI
SSHRC
US CDC
Canada Research Chair
Harvard University
Yrjo Jahnsson Foundation
University of California
NSERC
CIHR
OMHF
NIAAA
AstraZeneca
PHRC
BMS
Lundbeck
Autism Speaks
Merck
ESF
NWO
GSK
NIA
NIMH
KCL
NSFC
NHS England
National Key Technologies R&D ...
Victorian State Government
MIUR
MEXT
ALF, Sweden
UK Department of Health
Cancer Research UK
SMRI
973 China
CNPq Brazil
NSC Taiwan
Telethon
Australian Govt.
Australian Rotary Health
MRC UK
DFG
ESRC UK
FIS
ARC
FAS Sweden
BMBF
NIHR
WT
MHLW Japan
NHMRC
MHW Korea
JSPS
Janssen
MICINN
Fundacion Alicia Koplowitz, Sp...
Lilly
PAHO
HRC
WHO
Colonial Foundation
Pfizer
Pfizer Foundation
FAPES
CAPES
MEC, Spain
EU
US PHS
CONACYT
Autism Research Institute
Roche Research Foundation
Karolinska Institutet
HRB of Ireland
Scottish Govt.
FIRCA
RWJF
NIH
VU Amsterdam, Netherlands
University of Groningen
University of Michigan
NIDRR
ERC
BBRF
NCI
MacArthur Foundation
MSFHR
Finland
FWO-V
SNSF
Johns Hopkins University
SAMHSA
MRC
FRQS
INSERM
NIEHS
NIDA
VA
Tourette Syndrome Association
Shire
NIAID
NINR
Academy of Finland
NRC
NICHD
University of Minnesota
NCRR
AFSP
US DOD
NHLBI
SRC
MEST Korea
32
Mapping the global mental health research funding system
Figure 2-23
Network of co-acknowledged funders – “Aged” and “middle aged”
categories in MeSH (coloured by modularity class)
MRC UK
BHF UK
NWO
Academy of Finland
University of Helsinki
FAS Sweden
Cancer Research UK
Karolinska Institutet
CHDI
FWO-V
WHO
MEXT
MICINN
Roche Research Foundation
ASC
Lilly
MHLW Japan
University of Michigan
Pfizer Foundation
US PHS
FIRCA
FAPES
NIAMS
Johns Hopkins University
American Cancer Society
HRC
AFaR
SAMHSA
NIDDK
NIDCD
US NSF
Harvard University
NIDRR
Commonwealth of Pennsylvania D...
NICHD
NIBIB
ADRC
NIMHD
National Key Technologies R&D ...
Forest
BBRF
Larry L Hillblom Foundation
MRC
AFSP
ARC
Australian Rotary Health
Australian Govt.
JSPS
PAHO
NINDS
NIAAA
AstraZeneca
ADNI
MEST Korea
University of New South Wales
NIDA
CAPES
Dana Foundation
Merck
MEC, Spain
Sanofi
NHLBI
OMHF
MIUR
Wyeth
Janssen
Canada Research Chair
NIA
Pfizer
European Social Fund
MHW Korea
CNPq Brazil
NSERC
NIH
PHRC
Ricerca Finalizzata and Ricerc...
SMRI
Department of Health, Taiwan
NRF Korea
NSC Taiwan
Swedish Brainpower
Novartis
NHMRC
SSHRC
FCT Portugal
GSK
Finnish Cultural Foundation
KCL
MSFHR
EPSRC
Mayo Clinic Foundation
Lundbeck Foundation
INSERM
MacArthur Foundation
Alz Assoc.
Stiftelsen Gamla Tjanarinnor
ALF, Sweden
BMBF
BMS
AR UK
UK Department of Health
DFG
SNSF
WT
CIHR
Alzheimer Society, UK
Gun and Bertil Stohnes Stiftelse
SRC
Swedish Alzheimer Association
FIS
BUPA Foundation UK
ISAO
VU Amsterdam, Netherlands
Lundbeck
FRM
Scottish Govt.
NHS England
FRQS
ESF
Michael J Fox Foundation for P...
EU
ANR
BBSRC
NRC
VWS
NIHR
ESRC UK
University of Groningen
NIMH
NINR
973 China
US DOD
John A. Hartford Foundation
RWJF
University of California
863 China
NIAID
NCCAM
NSFC
DHHS
US CDC
AHA
VA
University of Hong Kong
NCI
NCRR
Chapter 3 What does the future hold?
Key points
1.Most funders we spoke to expressed a desire
to widen existing collaborations and develop
new relationships and some discussed particular
research areas which they plan to prioritise.
2. Some funders talked about plans to increase their
evaluation activities beyond measuring immediate
outputs, while none expressed plans to decrease
evaluation.
3. Challenges were highlighted in relation to:
• Maintaining funding levels, in light of a decline
in industry support and pressure on public
spending.
• Working in a field which is complex and fragmented, both in terms of the stakeholder
groups involved and the research areas and
approaches employed.
• Translating research into practice and effectively scaling up the resulting interventions.
3.1 Overview of deep dives
We carried out in-depth reviews of a sample of
funders to explore current practices and future
plans, in terms of amounts, types, mechanisms
and areas of funding (as described in Section 1.2).
Our aim in selecting this sample was to cover
the major funders globally, as well as in Canada
and the UK specifically, while at the same time
ensuring diversity in the organisations covered.
Our set of 32 profiles comprises organisations of
different sizes; from government, charitable and
industry sectors; focused on different types of
research (basic, applied, translational, health services, etc.); of different ages; and with different
ways of working. In addition, all willing members
of the International Alliance of Mental Health
Research Funders were covered. The organisations
4. Opportunities identified included:
• Increasing collaboration, including working
with different stakeholder groups and across
sectors.
• Developing shared definitions and classification systems to promote collaboration and
facilitate advocacy.
• Capitalising on mental health being a priority
area for some governments.
• Developing a key role for non-governmental
funders in taking a long-term view on priorities and filling gaps in funding.
• Using new technologies, such as new research
tools and data sharing platforms, to support
the researchers they fund and facilitate collaboration and shared working.
included are set out in Table 3-1 (asterisks indicate
members of the International Alliance of Mental
Health Research Funders, as of April 2015).
The deep dive profiles were built up from interviews, desk research and analysis of the bibliometric data. We looked at aspects of research funding including areas and mechanisms of funding,
collaborations, evaluation practices and strategy
development, in each case looking at both current
practices and future plans. The full set of funder
profiles has been published alongside this report,
while the interview protocol used is provided in
Appendix A.
Six cross-cutting themes emerged from our
analysis. The first of these (research areas and definitions) was a topic we planned to explore further
with funders from the outset, given the challenges
we faced in the first phase of this study in defin-
34
Mapping the global mental health research funding system
Table 3-1
Funders included in deep dive profiles
Funder
Location
Sector
Research focus
1
AIHS *
Canada
Government
Health general
2
Alz Association
US
Charity/ Foundation/ Non-profit
MH condition
3
BBRF *
US
Charity/ Foundation/ Non-profit
MH general
4
Beyondblue
Australia
Charity/ Foundation/ Non-profit
MH condition
5
BHF
UK
Charity/ Foundation/ Non-profit
Other non-MH
area
6
BMBF
Germany
Government
General
7
CIHR *
Canada
Government
Health general
8
CNPq Brazil
Brazil
Government
General
9
ERC
EU
Government
General
10
ESRC
UK
Government
Non-health
11
Fondation FondaMental *
France
Charity/ Foundation/ Non-profit
MH general
12
FRQS *
Canada
Government
Health general
13
GBF *
Canada
Charity/ Foundation/ Non-profit
MH condition
14
Grand Challenges Canada *
Canada
Government
Health general
15
Lundbeck Foundation *
Denmark
Charity/ Foundation/ Non-profit
Health general
16
MHRUK
UK
Charity/ Foundation/ Non-profit
MH general
17
Movember *
Australia
Charity/ Foundation/ Non-profit
Health general
18
MQ *
UK
Charity/ Foundation/ Non-profit
MH general
19
MRC
UK
Government
Health general
20
NHMRC *
Australia
Government
Health general
21
NIDA
US
Government
MH condition
22
NIHR *
UK
Government
Health general
23
NIMH *
US
Government
MH general
24
NSF
US
Government
General
25
OBI
Canada
Government
MH general
26
OMHF *
Canada
Government
MH general
27
Pfizer
US
Industry
Health general
28
Stanley Medical Research Institute
US
Charity/ Foundation/ Non-profit
MH condition
29
VA
US
Government
Health general
30
Wellcome Trust *
UK
Charity/ Foundation/ Non-profit
Health general
31
YAWCRC *
Australia
Charity/ Foundation/ Non-profit
MH general
32
Zon MW
Netherlands
Government
Health general
What does the future hold?
ing the mental health field. The other five themes
emerged from a cross-cutting analysis of the deep
dive reviews as the topics which seemed the most
pertinent in the field at this time. The six themes are:
i. Research areas and definitions
As noted above, there is no agreed definition
of mental health, although a number of diagnostic or research classification systems exist.
This theme looks at funders’ reasons for using
(or not using) a particular definition and compares their portfolios of research by topic, as
found in our data set.
ii. Attitudes to collaboration
While conducting research is becoming
increasingly collaborative, less is known about
collaboration between funders. This theme
explores funders’ attitudes to different kinds of
collaboration in mental health and considers
some of the opportunities and challenges associated with collaborative working in this area.
iii. Types of funding
Research funders support research through
a variety of funding vehicles (grants, fellowships, etc.) and differ in the degree to which
they specify research topics and aims. This
theme discusses the types of funding provided
by funders in our sample and highlights a
number of examples of less common practices
in the field.
iv. Strategy development
The funders in our sample vary in how they
develop and implement their strategies. This
theme considers some of the ways in which
strategies differ, including their level of formality, how broad or targeted they are and the
stakeholders involved in their development.
v. How funding decisions are made
Deciding which research applications to support is an important and often resource-intensive task for funders. This theme looks at the
decision-making processes used by the funders
in our sample, including the kinds of criteria
used and the stakeholders involved.
vi. Evaluation practices
Most research funders carry out some evaluation of the research they fund. This theme
summarises the range of approaches employed
by funders in our sample, in terms of their reasons for evaluating, the indicators and methods they are using and their future plans in
this area.
35
These themes have been written up as a set of six
short analyses, each discussing the range of practices observed across our set of 32 funders. They are
provided alongside this report to accompany the
deep dive profiles (available at www.randeurope.
org/mental-health-ecosystem).
In the sections that follow we focus on future
plans, challenges and opportunities, summarising
information collected for the funder deep dives
from interviews and document review.
3.2 Views on the future
An important part of the deep dive profiles was to
explore the future plans of our sample of funding
organisations. In doing so we hoped to be able to
highlight areas of complementarity and potential
collaboration, as well as compare the anticipated
challenges and opportunities of organisations of
different sizes and in different sectors and countries.
The interviews revealed that among many
funders, particularly government agencies, there
is uncertainty around the level, distribution and
research focus of future funding, often due to an
obligation to align with potentially-shifting government priorities or a dependency on uncertain
funding allocations. Nevertheless, some organisations did highlight areas of focus for future investment. Funders including MQ in the UK and
CIHR in Canada mentioned a greater emphasis on youth mental health, something which
is already a priority area for some of the other
funders in our sample (e.g. the Graham Boeckh
Foundation, Young and Well CRC). Given the
early age of onset of many mental health conditions, this is consistent with an increasing focus
on the prevention of mental illness, as mentioned
by others including beyondblue. Another area of
growing interest is the use of technology in mental
health, both in terms of the potential benefits for
research of advances in big data and bioinformatics and in relation to e-health and the development
of technology-based treatments. The importance
of new technologies is discussed further below.
Most funders we spoke to plan to expand current collaborations with other funding organisations and develop new relationships. In some
instances, such arrangements were seen as a way
to extend an individual organisation’s reach (e.g.
OMHF), while in others, and particularly in relation to collaborations with private sector organisa-
36
Mapping the global mental health research funding system
tions, they were seen as a valuable way of diversifying the research funding base and potentially
facilitating translation of findings to practical
application (e.g. AIHS, CNPq, NIDA). Challenges relating to both funding and research translation are discussed further below.
The final area in which a number of organisations discussed concrete plans was the expansion
of evaluation practices beyond measuring outputs.
This was mentioned by a range of government and
charitable funders in the United States, Canada,
Australia and Europe. An increasing emphasis
internationally on demonstrating impacts beyond
the generation of knowledge has created a pressing need for both researchers and funders to think
beyond traditional academic outputs, but measuring downstream impacts, which often occur over
long timescales, across a broad portfolio of funded
work is not a straightforward task. The challenges
in linking impacts to specific funding are discussed further in Chapter 4.
Challenges are anticipated in relation to
funding, the diversity of the field and
research translation
Funding organisations globally are facing challenges in maintaining (sufficient) funding for
mental health research, with the largest mental
health-specific funder in the world, NIMH, commenting that it has lost more than 20 per cent of
its purchasing power in the past ten years. Several organisations mentioned the importance of
protecting funding by engaging government and
demonstrating the potential benefits of mental
health research, while others mentioned the crucial role that other sectors can play. In particular, many highlighted the need for greater private
sector funding to offset reduced government support, while also noting that, in contrast to this, the
trend has been for investment from the pharmaceutical industry to decline in recent years (e.g. Insel
& Gogtay 2013). Limited resources also create the
challenge of how best to allocate funding, with
some organisations finding it challenging to make
decisions on which areas are most likely to produce
the greatest benefits and how to balance their portfolios between, for example, research focused on
treatment versus prevention, or between pharmacological and psychosocial approaches to therapy.
The challenges of allocation and selection are
accentuated by the diversity of the mental health
field and the complexity of the issues that research
is trying to address. Often the precise mechanisms
underlying particular conditions are unknown,
meaning that the most promising research targets or approaches are unclear. As shown in our
analysis in Chapter 2 and in the deep dive profiles, research from many different areas can be
relevant to mental health and the funding organisations supporting such work vary in their scale,
remit and approach. This fragmentation, along
with silos and barriers between different groups
of stakeholders, creates challenges in maintaining an awareness of the current state of the field
as a whole, in identifying gaps and opportunities
and in raising the profile of mental health research
generally.
Finally, a number of organisations, particularly in Canada and the UK, highlighted difficulties in facilitating the practical application of
research findings in improving mental health services. Some commented that insufficient funding
is available for research in this area, while it was
also mentioned that when successful interventions
are identified, it is not easy to scale them up in the
mental health care system.
Opportunities may exist in increased
collaboration, developing shared
definitions, capitalising on government
priorities, the key role of nongovernmental organisations and
advancing technology
Most funders contacted in compiling the deep dive
profiles expressed a desire (or willingness) to work
with other organisations and often this was seen as
a way of overcoming the fragmented nature of the
mental health field. Suggested forms of collaboration or cooperation include sharing expertise on
grant selection processes and peer review, sharing research data or findings and working more
closely with other stakeholder groups. A variety
of stakeholders were mentioned, including the
involvement of patient and family groups and the
creation of stronger links among researchers, but
also the potential benefits of working with organisations in related sectors. The fact that mental
health issues both affect other sectors and are
influenced by developments in other sectors suggests that building collaborations with actors in
areas such as education and the justice system may
be beneficial (e.g. WHO 2013).
What does the future hold?
It was suggested by some interviewees that collaboration would be aided by developing a clearer,
shared classification system and set of definitions.
Our deep dive reviews revealed that the majority of
funders do not use a working definition of mental
health. While some may not need a definition for
their own funding activities (for example, if they
focus on one particular mental health condition),
having a definition may facilitate discussions with
other organisations and support the sharing of
comparable data. Common definitions might also
be a useful tool for advocacy and assist in raising
the profile of the mental health field as a whole in a
coherent way. International initiatives, such as the
International Alliance for Mental Health Research
Funders, were considered as valuable tools for
sharing progress and ideas internationally, while
also potentially having a role in instigating efforts
to develop and refine common definitions.
Several interviewees commented that mental
health is gaining prominence and rising up the
policy agenda in their locations (for example,
this was mentioned specifically in Australia and
Quebec). In these instances, funders emphasised
the importance of capitalising on current government priorities to boost investment in mental
health research. Similarly, the nationwide BRAIN
initiative (Brain Research through Advancing
Innovative Neurotechnologies) in the United
States was mentioned as an indicator of the prominence of neuroscience in government priorities
and an important opportunity for a range of funding organisations to collaborate and raise the profile of mental health research.
37
A particular opportunity was mentioned for
charities, foundations and non-profits in the face
of pressures on government budgets and a decline
in pharmaceutical industry investment in mental
health. Free from the constraints of government
policy and budget cycles, non-government organisations may be able to ‘fill the gaps’ and take a
longer-term view of priorities and initiatives that
might take time to become established. One
funder also mentioned that opportunities may
arise from a growing level of philanthropic support specifically for research in mental health in
the United States, commenting that in the past
such funding tended to be targeted more towards
service delivery.
Finally, as previously mentioned, a number of
funders highlighted opportunities arising from
advances in technology. Such progress has the
potential to impact on a number of areas, including new research tools and alternative treatment
options, but may also bring particular opportunities for sharing research data and findings and carrying out comparative analysis of large data sets.
Several funders mentioned that they now have
policies on making available on public platforms
the data generated by funded research. In terms
of shedding light on the global research funding
landscape, new tools have the potential to allow
powerful analytical approaches to mapping funding flows and linking funding with the subsequent
outputs and impacts of research. This is discussed
further in Chapter 4.
Chapter 4 What next?
Key points
1. This study contributes to elucidating the mental
health research funding landscape and advancing
our understanding of bottom-up approaches to
mapping research systems.
2. Advances in technology and increasing availability
of data have allowed, and continue to allow, new
and/or more comprehensive approaches to mapping research funding to be developed.
This report provides the first global view of the
mental health research funding landscape of which
we are aware. In doing so, it should help organisations that fund mental health research, by highlighting opportunities for collaboration, as well as
exploring the diversity of practice in terms of setting strategy, selecting research to fund and evaluating its impacts. We also looked to the future by
investigating the future plans of a sample of key
funders.
However, this is only a snapshot of mental
health research – this chapter considers how to
build on this work and discusses the opportunities
provided by new technologies in data collection
and aggregation.
To understand the nature and dynamics of
a research field it is necessary to understand the
funding flows and the behaviour of the funders
within it and to link this to the outputs and
impacts from the research that is supported – over
the long term the societal benefits it brings, and as
a short term measure the knowledge produced and
disseminated through publications. In previous
studies we have explored the outputs and impacts
of mental health research (Larivière et al. 2013;
Wooding et al. 2013). This report looks at the
‘other side of the coin’, mapping the funding flows
3. Significant technical, conceptual and cultural
challenges remain in improving the accuracy and
completeness of data, developing commonly
understood definitions in the mental health field
to facilitate comparisons and causally linking data
on funding flows to the longer term outcomes
and impacts produced by research.
and investigating funder behaviour. The challenge
that remains is to link this information together to
show the causal links and identify how particular
funding produces particular impacts.
Mapping funding flows
Mapping the flows of funding in a research system
is conceptually simple: it involves cataloguing all
the money that is spent on research and identifying what it is used for. What complicates the task
is the diversity of research funders, the many different ways research is supported and, in the case
of mental health, the nebulous nature of the field.
As the availability of data has improved and technology has developed, different approaches have
become feasible – and we are currently on the cusp
of further change.
As described in Chapter 1, a number of previous studies aiming to map research funding have
done so by identifying the major research funders
in a particular field or locality and manually collating information about their funding portfolios (e.g. CIHR 2014, MQ 2015). This approach
has the major advantage of allowing monetary
values to be linked to funding awards, topics,
institutions and so on. Many funders also categorise their awards according to defined classi-
40
Mapping the global mental health research funding system
fication schemes, allowing a detailed analysis of
the types and areas of research supported. However, such an approach may not always facilitate
a straightforward comparison or aggregation
across organisations, due to differences in the classification approaches used. For example, in the
mental health field, research might be categorised
by condition, therapeutic area, methodological
approach, or another research dimension. A topdown approach to defining the research field can
also overlook smaller funders and larger funders
who may not consider mental health within their
primary remit, but nevertheless might support
substantial work in mental health (e.g. the British
Heart Foundation), in particular interdisciplinary
or cross-condition research.
Bottom-up approaches to mapping
An alternative approach, and the one taken in
this study, is to build a map of funding from the
bottom up, aiming to find funding relevant to
mental health, irrespective of the field or remit of
the organisation supporting it. This has become
easier in recent years with the systematic recording of funding acknowledgement information
in Web of Science. Publications also have the
additional advantage of linking information on
funding to a range of other data points, including authors, location, topics and citations, and
defining the mental health field based on topics
of publications ensures that a consistent definition is used across all research funders. We highlighted a number of potential limitations of this
approach in Chapter 1, particularly around the
inconsistent naming of organisations and, due to
the relatively recent introduction of the indicator,
the absence of acknowledgement information in a
significant number of papers. A further question
remains around the extent to which the volume
of acknowledgements can be considered a proxy
for the amount of money provided: can acknowledgements represent a ‘common currency’? It is,
for example, unclear how relative levels of funding compare between a paper with a single funder
acknowledged and a paper with a number of different organisations named. Similarly, the number
of publications per grant or ‘cost’ per publication
may well differ between disciplines or for different
types of funding vehicle. Bibliometric data alone is
not yet sufficient to provide answers to these questions. While we attempted to address these ques-
tions by comparing data for key funders with data
provided by berResearch (see below for details
on berResearch’s approach), the comparisons
were hindered by differences between the definitions of mental health used in our data set and
available in the berResearch database.
Collation-based approaches to mapping
In recent years, the increased use of standardised
electronic systems by funders, the increased power
of computers and a greater willingness to share
data has seen the development of a new approach
to mapping research funding, whereby award
data from multiple funders is combined. Layers
of meta-data are then added to the database, for
example research classification systems based on
textual analysis of titles, abstracts and keywords,
to provide consistent analysis for all funders across
the combined data set (berResearch’s Dimensions tool is an example of such an approach11).
By collating data at a macro level, independent of
any one funder’s constructs, such approaches have
the potential to provide comprehensive information across a field on both the structure of funding flows and the amounts of funding involved,
but will require the cooperation of funders in providing their data to achieve this. In the future, by
incorporating acknowledgement data and hence
combining top-down (funder-driven) and bottom-up (publication-driven) approaches, it may
also become possible to elucidate more clearly the
links between the inputs to and outputs from a
research system.
Significant technical, conceptual and
cultural challenges remain
While advances in technology and data availability
have provided opportunities for new approaches
and tools in mapping research funding, there
are still a number of challenges in constructing a
comprehensive and reliable picture of the funding
landscape.
First, while some forms of funding, such as
project grants and fellowships, are relatively easy
to recognise, other sources of research support are
more challenging to identify and quantify. In our
data set, the funding acknowledgements referring
11 www.uberresearch.com/dimensions-for-funders/ (as of 17
October 2015)
What next?
to academic institutions may in part have reflected
block funding provided to universities, but this is
not something universally recognised in publications and our survey of researchers revealed that
few acknowledge support such as estate costs or
the provision of equipment. Although this may
pose difficulties in assessing the overall scale of
funding and the relative contributions of different
actors, it does not substantially detract from the
utility of such mapping exercises in showing where
funders complement and overlap one another, or
where opportunities exist for greater cooperation.
A more pressing issue may be the common difficulty found across all approaches in establishing where to draw the boundaries around mental
health research and how to define areas within
it. This clearly presents challenges for an exercise
such as this one, which relies on identifying a valid
data set on which to base the mapping.
Beyond this technical challenge, though, our
observation that there is no agreed definition of
mental health among research funders underlines
that this challenge also exists at a more conceptual level and is reflected in the way that different
people and organisations define their objectives,
develop their strategies and talk about mental
health research. Not every funder needs to use the
same set of definitions in their daily operations.
Indeed, it is important to acknowledge that no
single system is likely to suit all funders and that
there are no formal boundaries between fields in
an increasingly interdisciplinary research world.
However, a common perception of the landscape
and robust definitions which can be shared with
others would allow funders to compare their own
portfolios with those of others, helping them
better understand the context in which they are
working and the opportunities that exist within it.
Finally, looking beyond the inputs and immediate outputs of the research process, there is
41
increasing emphasis internationally on understanding and measuring the downstream impacts
of research. While publications can relatively easily
be formally attributed to particular grants and
hence funders, it is far more difficult to accurately
attribute societal impacts in a systematic and comprehensive way. Doing so requires identifying both
the impact itself and the pathway by which it was
achieved – which may cover a significant period
of time, given the length of time it can take for
impacts to be produced (e.g. Hanney et al. 2015).
Tools such as Researchfish,12 which allows researchers to record a range of different kinds of impacts
(in addition to academic outputs) in relation to
individual pieces of funding, have the potential, if
widely adopted, to catalogue comprehensive and
consistent data. However, their utility is dependent on researchers reporting the impacts that have
occurred and funders providing suitable training
and support. Challenges remain around determining the relative contributions of individual pieces
of funding to the achievement of an impact, particularly those arising over longer periods of time.
Concluding thought
In this study we set out with ambitious aims to
comprehensively map the global mental health
research funding ecosystem. Although we
acknowledge that the approach taken is imperfect and that results should be interpreted with
its limitations in mind, we believe that it makes
an important contribution to both elucidating
the mental health research funding landscape
and advancing our understanding of bottom-up
approaches to mapping research systems. Driven
by a need to better understand the returns generated by specific research funding and advances in
the technology, tools and data available to explore
the research ecosystem, we hope that this is a step
towards further progress in the coming few years.
12 www.researchfish.com (as of 17 October 2015)
References
Blondel, V. D, Guillaume, J. L, Lambiotte, R, &
Lefebvre, E. 2008. Fast unfolding of communities in large networks. Journal of Statistical
Mechanics: Theory and Experiment, 2008(10),
P10008.
Bloom, D. E, Cafiero, E. T, Jané-Llopis, E, Abrahams-Gessel, S, Bloom, L. R, Fathima, S, et al.
2011. The Global Economic Burden of Noncommunicable Diseases. Geneva: World Economic
Forum.
Boyack, K. W, & Jordan, P. 2011. Metrics associated with NIH funding: a high-level view. Journal of the American Medical Informatics Association, 18(4), 423–431.
CIHR. 2014. ‘A portrait of Canada’s investments, assets and resources from 2007/2008
to 2011/2012’. Health services and policy
research investments, CIHR website. As of
17 October 2015: http://www.cihr-irsc.gc.ca/
map-carte_ihspr-isps/e/ca.html
Costas, R, & van Leeuwen, T. N. 2012. Approaching the ‘Reward Triangle: general analysis of the
presence of funding acknowledgements and ‘peer
interactive communication’ in scientific publications: CWTS, Leiden University.
Daniels, S.A. 2012. ‘The Autism Research Landscape: The IACC, Research Funding and Data
Sharing’. Interagency Autism Coordinating
Committee – Presentation.
Dawson, G. 1998. Mapping the Landscape,
NATIONAL BIOMEDICAL RESEARCH
OUTPUTS 1988–95. London: The Wellcome
Trust.
Garau, M, Mordoh, A, & Sussex, J. 2011. Exploring the Interdependency between Public and
Charitable Medical Research. Project Report.
Cancer Research UK.
Gazni, A, Sugimoto, C. R, & Didegah, F. 2012.
Mapping world scientific collaboration:
Authors, institutions, and countries. Journal of
the American Society for Information Science and
Technology, 63(2), 323–335.
Hanney, S. R, Castle-Clarke, S, Grant, J, Guthrie, S, Henshall, C, Mestre-Ferrandiz, J, et al.
2015. How long does biomedical research take?
Studying the time taken between biomedical and health research and its translation into
products, policy, and practice. Health Research
Policy and Systems, 13(1), 1.
Haro, J. M, Ayuso-Mateos, J. L, Bitter, I, DemotesMainard, J, Leboyer, M, Lewis, S. W, et al.
2014. ROAMER: roadmap for mental health
research in Europe. International Journal of
Methods in Psychiatric Research, 23(S1), 1–14.
Insel, T. R, & Gogtay, N. 2014. National institute
of mental health clinical trials: New opportunities, new expectations. JAMA Psychiatry, 71(7),
745–746.
Kessler, R. C, Angermeyer, M, Anthony, J. C, De
Graaf, R. O. N, Demyttenaere, K, Gasquet,
I. et al. 2007. Lifetime prevalence and age-ofonset distributions of mental disorders in the
World Health Organization’s World Mental
Health Survey Initiative. World Psychiatry, 6(3),
168–176.
Larivière, V, Diepeveen, S, Ni Chonaill, S,
Macaluso, B, Pollitt, A, & Grant, J. 2013.
International comparative performance of
mental health research, 1980–2011. European
Neuropsychopharmacology(23), 1340–1347.
Liggins, C, Snyder, H. M, Silverberg, N, Petanceska,
S, Refolo, L. M, Ryan, L, & Carrillo, M. C. 2014.
International Alzheimer’s Disease Research Portfolio (IADRP) aims to capture global Alzheimer’s
disease research funding. Alzheimer’s & Dementia, 10(3), May 2014, 405–408.
Metastatic Breast Cancer Alliance. 2014. Changing
the Landscape for People Living with Metastatic
Breast Cancer. Metastatic Breast Cancer Landscape Analysis: Research Report.
44
Mapping the global mental health research funding system
Moed, H, Burger, W, Frankfort, J, & Raan, A. V.
1985. The application of bibliometric indicators: Important field- and time-dependent factors to be considered. Scientometrics, 8(3–4),
177–203.
Morgan Jones, M, & Grant, J. 2011. Complex
trauma research in the UK: A rapid review of
the funding landscape, Santa Monica, Calif.:
RAND Corporation, DB-613-DH.
MQ. 2015. UK Mental Health Research Funding.
MQ Landscape Analysis. London: MQ.
Murray, C. J. L, Vos, T, Lozano, R, Naghavi, M,
Flaxman, A. D, Michaud, C, et al. 2012. Disability-adjusted life years (DALYs) for 291 diseases and injuries in 21 regions, 1990–2010:
a systematic analysis for the Global Burden of
Disease Study 2010. The Lancet, 380(9859),
2197–2223.
Newman, M. E. 2001. The structure of scientific collaboration networks. Proceedings of the
National Academy of Sciences, 98(2), 404–409.
NHS Executive. 2001. Putting NHS research on the
map: An analysis of scientific publications in England, 1990–97. London: The Wellcome Trust.
Rutter, M. 2002. The interplay of nature, nurture,
and developmental influences: The challenge
ahead for mental health. Archives of General
Psychiatry, 59(11), 996–1000.
Shah, K, Sussex, J, Hernandez-Villafuerte, K,
Garau, M, Rotolo, D, Hopkins, M, M, Grassano, N, Crane, P, Lang, F, Hutton, J, Pateman, C, Mawer, A, Farrell, C & Sharp, T.
2014. Exploring the interdependencies of research
funders in the UK. Project Report. Cancer
Research UK.
Singh, J, Illes, J, Lazzeroni, L, & Hallmayer, J.
2009. Trends in US Autism Research Funding.
Journal of Autism and Developmental Disorders,
39(5), 788–795.
Vos, T, Barber, R. M, Bell, B, Bertozzi-Villa, A,
Biryukov, S, Bolliger, I, et al. 2015. Global,
regional, and national incidence, prevalence,
and years lived with disability for 301 acute
and chronic diseases and injuries in 188 countries, 1990–2013: a systematic analysis for the
Global Burden of Disease Study 2013. The
Lancet, 386(9995), 743–800.
Wagner, C.S, Cave, J, Tesch, T, Allee, V, Thomson,
R, Leydesdorff, L, & Botterman, M. 2005.
ERAnets: Evaluation of networks of collaboration
among participants in IST research and their evolution to collaborations in the European Research
Area. RAND Europe report for the European
Commission DG INFSO.
Waltman, L, Tijssen, R. J, & van Eck, N, J. 2011.
Globalisation of science in kilometres. Journal
of Informetrics, 5(4), 574–582.
Whiteford, H. A, Degenhardt, L, Rehm, J, Baxter,
A. J, Ferrari, A. J, Erskine, H. E, et al. 2013.
Global burden of disease attributable to mental
and substance use disorders: findings from the
Global Burden of Disease Study 2010. The
Lancet, 382(9904), 1575–1586.
WHO. 2013. Mental health action plan 2013 –
2020. Geneva, Swtizerland: World Health
Organization.
Wooding, S, Pollitt, A, Castle-Clark, S, Cochrane,
G, Diepeveen, S, Guthrie, S, et al. 2013.
Mental Health Retrosight: Understanding the
returns from research (lessons from schizophrenia):
Policy Report Cambridge, UK: RAND Europe.
Annex 1 – Canada
Our data set includes 10,894 papers with a corresponding author located in Canada. This is 5.7
per cent of the global mental health output in the
period 2009–2014.
Ninety of our core group of 1,908 funders are
Canadian organisations, the breakdown of which
by sector is shown in Figure A1-1 below. Canadian
funders are acknowledged on 6,077 papers during
our time period. As we observe in the data set as a
whole and on a similar scale to the global picture,
government funders appear to typically fund more
mental health research than charities, foundations
and non-profits – an average of 270 acknowledgements per government funder, compared with 68
per charity, foundation or non-profit.
The ARC of Canadian-funded papers is slightly
higher than in the overall data set, a result which
is observed across each of the funding sectors (see
Figure A1-2 below).
The most frequently acknowledged Canadian
funders are shown in Table A1-1 below.
Figure A1-1
Breakdown of number of Canadian funders and funding acknowledgements by funder sector13
NumberNumber
ofNumber
funding
of funding
ofacknowledgements
funding
acknowledgements
acknowledgements
Number
of
funders
Number
of funders
Number
of funders
4
4
(4%) (4%)
65 (1%)
65 (1%)
699 699
(6%)(6%)
16 (18%)
16 (18%)
Academia
Academia
Charity/Foundation
Charity/Foundation
31 (35%)
31 (35%)
Government
Government
Industry
Industry
38 (43%)
38 (43%)
13 Note that one funder acknowledged was a publisher, accounting
for 11 acknowledgements
25732573
(22%)
(22%)
Academia
Academia
Charity/Foundation
Charity/Foundation
Government
Government
Industry
Industry
83648364
(71%)
(71%)
46
Mapping the global mental health research funding system
Figure A1-2
Average relative citations by funder sector – Canada
2.50
1.92
2.00
1.91
1.75
1.65
1.64
1.63
1.64
1.58
1.50
Canada
Dataset
1.00
0.50
0.00
Academia
Charity/Foundation
Government
Industry
Table A1-1
Top 30 funders in Canada
Rank
World
rank
1
5
2
42
3
Funder
Canadian Institutes of Health
Research (CIHR)
No. of
papers
Sector
Proportion
of Canadian
papers
Proportion
of global
papers
4701
Government
77.4%
4.2%
Fonds de recherche en santé du
Québec (FRQS)
838
Government
13.8%
0.7%
47
Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada (NSERC)
784
Government
12.9%
0.7%
4
75
Canada Research Chair
446
Government
7.3%
0.4%
5
83
Michael Smith Foundation for
Health Research (MSFHR)
391
Charity/
Foundation
6.4%
0.3%
6
93
Ontario Mental Health Foundation
(OMHF)
342
Charity/
Foundation
5.6%
0.3%
7
104
Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council (SSHRC)
296
Government
4.9%
0.3%
8
115
Ontario Ministry of Health and
Long-Term Care (MOHLTC)
258
Government
4.2%
0.2%
9
121
Alzheimer Society of Canada (ASC)
247
Charity/
Foundation
4.1%
0.2%
10
125
Alberta Innovates Health Solutions
(AIHS)
242
Government
4.0%
0.2%
Annex 1 – Canada
Rank
World
rank
Funder
Proportion
of Canadian
papers
Proportion
of global
papers
11
136
Canada Foundation for Innovation
(CFI)
228
Charity/
Foundation
3.8%
0.2%
12
152
Heart and Stroke Foundation,
Canada
202
Charity/
Foundation
3.3%
0.2%
13
253
Canadian Psychiatric Association
Foundation
119
Charity/
Foundation
2.0%
0.1%
14
254
Manitoba Health Research Council
119
Government
2.0%
0.1%
15
262
University of British Columbia (UBC)
114
Academia
1.9%
0.1%
16
274
University of Toronto
110
Academia
1.8%
0.1%
17
289
Genome Canada
106
Charity/
Foundation
1.7%
0.1%
18
296
Centre for Addiction and Mental
Health (CAMH)
104
Academia
1.7%
0.1%
19
365
Pacific Alzheimer Research
Foundation Centre
79
Charity/
Foundation
1.3%
0.1%
20
383
Hospital for Sick Children
Foundation, Canada
75
Charity/
Foundation
1.2%
0.1%
21
400
Health Canada
70
Government
1.2%
0.1%
22
419
University of Montreal
66
Academia
1.1%
0.1%
23
451
University of Calgary
62
Academia
1.0%
0.1%
24
463
Muscular Dystrophy Association
Canada
59
Charity/
Foundation
1.0%
0.1%
25
483
Government of Canada
56
Government
0.9%
0.0%
26
492
Ontario Ministry of Research and
Innovation
55
Government
0.9%
0.0%
27
493
Canadian Tobacco Control Research
Initiative (CTCRI)
55
Charity/
Foundation
0.9%
0.0%
28
514
Nova Scotia Health Research
Foundation
52
Charity/
Foundation
0.9%
0.0%
29
521
Ontario Graduate Scholarship
51
Government
0.8%
0.0%
30
526
Canadian Cancer Society Research
Institute
51
Charity/
Foundation
0.8%
0.0%
As for the global research landscape, we also developed network maps for Canada showing, firstly,
all Canadian funders based on their co-acknowledgement on papers (Figure A1-3) and secondly,
the funders acknowledged on papers with a Cana-
No. of
papers
Sector
47
dian address (Figure A1-4). As one would expect,
CIHR dominates both networks, with the provincial research funders and other research councils
also clearly visible. In Figure A1-4 we can see the
relatively large involvement of US funders.
48
Mapping the global mental health research funding system
Figure A1-3
Network of co-acknowledgement of all Canadian funders14
Lawson Health Research Institute
Drummond Found.
CIDA
Mental Health Commission of Ca...
Uni of Western Ontario
Ontario Womens Health Council
Canadian Nurses Found.
Scottish Rite Charitable Found...
Saul A. Silverman Family Found.
PSI Foundation
CAMH
Toronto Rehabilitation Institu...
MSFHR
Allon
Baycrest Found.
Vancouver Coastal Health Resea...
Health Canada
Uni of Saskatchewan
Ontario Problem Gambling Resea...
Uni of Toronto
Ontario Graduate Scholarship
ICES
BC Mental Health and Addiction...
Alberta Gaming Research Instit...
OMHF
NSERC
Ontario Neurotrauma Found.
Ontario Institute for Cancer R...
Pacific Alzheimer Research Fou...
Ontario Ministry of Research a...
Litebook Company Ltd
MOHLTC
Canadian Health Services and R...
NeuroDevNet
ASC
Heart&Stroke Foundation
Jack Brown and Family Alz. Fou...
Schizophrenia Society of Ontario
Valeant
CFI
Canadian Stroke Network
Child and Family Research Inst...
Hospital for Sick Children Fou...
Canadian Psychiatric Associati...
Uni of Montreal
National Cancer Institute of C...
CANMAT
AIHS
Canadian Institutes for Advanc...
Canadian Diabetes Association/...
Genome Canada
Norlien Found.
CRC
Medical Research Council of Ca...
Ontario Innovations Trust
Uni of Calgary
MS Society of Canada
Alberta Health Services
CIHR
Canadian Cancer Society Resear...
UBC
CTCRI
Saskatchewan Health Research F...
SSHRC
Uni of Alberta
Alberta Childrens Hospital Fou...
Queens Uni
Uni of Ottawa
McLaughlin Centre
McGill Uni
Govt. of Canada
FRQS
Montreal Childrens Hospital Re...
Manitoba Medical Services Foun...
Govt. of Ontario
Ontario Research Fund
McMaster Uni
Manitoba Health Research Council
Multiple Sclerosis Society of ...
Uni of Manitoba
Parkinson Society of Canada
FQRNT
Nova Scotia Health Research Fo...
OBI
National Health Research and D...
Ministere de l'education
Fonds Quebecois - Societe et l...
Capital District Health Author...
MultiHealth Systems
14 Coloured by modularity (see Appendix A for details)
Muscular Dystrophy Association...
49
Annex 1 – Canada
Figure A1-4
Network of co-acknowledged funders on Canadian papers in the entire mental health data set15
MOHLTC
CHDI
NINDS
NICHD
NIAAA
NIMH
Lundbeck
NIDA
NIH
Lilly
WT
AFSP
Health Canada
SSHRC
Uni of Toronto
PSI Foundation
CIHR
MSFHR
BBRF
UBC
Heart&Stroke Foundation
NIHR
CFI
AIHS
NSERC
OMHF
Uni of Montreal
Autism Speaks
ASC
NIA
15 Coloured by country
Pfizer
Janssen
Genome Canada
Alz Assoc.
Canadian Psychiatric Associati...
CRC
Hospital for Sick Children Fou...
SMRI
FRQS
AZ
Key:
USA
Taiwan
Iceland
UK
New Zealand
Estonia
Sweden
Ireland
Iran
Canada
Singapore
Colombia
Netherlands
Israel
Saudi Arabia
Australia
India
Slovakia
China
South Africa
Croatia
France
Czech Republic
Qatar
Germany
Poland
Venezuela
Japan
Turkey
Nigeria
Spain
Chile
Serbia
Finland
Hungary
Romania
Italy
Argentina
Slovenia
Denmark
Greece
Lebanon
Switzerland
Malaysia
Philippines
Belgium
Austria
Bulgaria
South Korea
Mexico
Pakistan
EU
Portugal
Lithuania
Norway
Russia
Brazil
Thailand
50
Mapping the global mental health research funding system
Finally, we carried out an analysis of the flows
of research funding into and out of Canada. In
this we use each paper’s funding acknowledgements and corresponding author address as proxies
for the source and destination of research funds.
In these terms, Canada is a net ‘importer’ making
3,592 funding acknowledgements to overseas
funders on papers in our data set. The majority
of these acknowledgements relate to US funding
organisations. This compares with 1,910 acknowledgements of Canadian funding on papers with a
non-Canadian corresponding address. Again, the
largest portion of these acknowledgements correspond to papers with a US address.
Figure A1-5
Flows of research funding: (i) Canadian funders supporting papers with corresponding
authors outside Canada and (ii) papers with Canadian corresponding authors
acknowledging non-Canadian funding16
NL
37
AU
173
US
952
FR
99
Number of acknowledgements of Canadian
funders on non-Canadian papers
ES
27
IL
29
BR
36
DE
68
UK
182
CH
28
SE
14
IT
56
CN
58
JP
53
TW
10
FI
11
IL
13
KR
12
EXPORT
DE
73
DK
11
IMPORT
IE
15
DK
55
MX
16
Number of funding acknowledgements on
Canadian papers
NL
22
EU
52
ES
30
16 Numbers represent individual acknowledgements, of which
there may be more than one on a paper. Countries with ten or more
acknowledgements are presented in the figure.
AU
69
BR
58
BE
58
FR
95
UK
257
JP
65
US
2370
SE
43
CN
69
IT
16
CH
114
Annex 2 – The UK
Our data set includes 18,138 papers with a corresponding author located in the UK. This is 7.9
per cent of the global mental health output in the
period 2009-2014.
In our core group of 1,908 funders, 136 are
UK organisations, the breakdown of which by
sector is shown in Figure A2-1 below. UK funders
are acknowledged on 10,257 papers in the data
set. As we observe in the data set as a whole, government funders appear to typically fund more
mental health research than charities, foundations
and non-profits – an average of 341 acknowledgements per government funder, compared with 86
per charity, foundation or non-profit. These averages are substantially higher than the corresponding averages across the whole (global) data set.
The ARC of UK-funded papers is substantially higher than we see in the data set as a whole,
although this difference is less pronounced for
industry-funded research (see Figure A2-2 below).
The most frequently acknowledged UK funders
are shown in Table A2-1 below.
Figure A2-1
Breakdown of number of UK funders and funding acknowledgement by funder sector17
Number
of funders
Number
of
funders
Number
of funders
Number
ofNumber
funding
Number
of funding
ofacknowledgements
funding
acknowledgements
acknowledgements
6
6
(5%) (5%)
1534 1534
(8%) 1542
(8%) 1542
(8%) (8%)
26 (20%)
26 (20%)
31 (23%)
31 (23%)
Academia
Academia
Charity/Foundation
Charity/Foundation
Government
Government
Industry
Industry
69 (52%)
69 (52%)
17 Note that four funders acknowledged were publishers, accounting
for 122 acknowledgements
Academia
Academia
5914 5914
(30%)(30%)
Charity/Foundation
Charity/Foundation
Government
Government
1056310563
(54%)(54%)
Industry
Industry
52
Mapping the global mental health research funding system
Figure A2-2
Average relative citations by funder sector – UK
2.50
2.26
2.02
2.00
1.91
1.86
1.70
1.64
1.63
1.58
1.50
UK
Dataset
1.00
0.50
0.00
Academia
Charity/Foundation
Government
Industry
Table A2-1
Top 30 funders in the UK
Rank
World
rank
Funder
No. of
papers
Sector
Proportion
of UK
papers
Proportion
of global
papers
1
10
UK Medical Research Council (MRC UK)
3503
Government
34.2%
3.1%
2
13
National Institute for Health Research
(NIHR)
3062
Government
29.9%
2.7%
3
15
Wellcome Trust
2434
Charity/
Foundation
23.7%
2.2%
4
31
NHS England
1126
Government
11.0%
1.0%
5
49
Economic and Social Research Council
(ESRC), UK
751
Government
7.3%
0.7%
6
51
UK Department of Health
700
Government
6.8%
0.6%
7
56
GlaxoSmithKline
653
Industry
6.4%
0.6%
8
60
Kings College London (KCL)
594
Academia
5.8%
0.5%
9
62
AstraZeneca
569
Industry
5.5%
0.5%
10
65
Alzheimers Research UK
528
Charity/
Foundation
5.1%
0.5%
11
92
Biotechnology and Biological Sciences
Research Council (BBSRC)
347
Government
3.4%
0.3%
Annex 2 – The UK
Rank
World
rank
Funder
Proportion
of UK
papers
Proportion
of global
papers
12
106
British Heart Foundation UK
290
Charity/
Foundation
2.8%
0.3%
13
123
Cancer Research UK
244
Charity/
Foundation
2.4%
0.2%
14
128
Scottish Government, Health Department
237
Government
2.3%
0.2%
15
130
Engineering and Physical Sciences
Research Council (EPSRC) (UK)
237
Government
2.3%
0.2%
16
139
Alzheimer Society, UK
227
Charity/
Foundation
2.2%
0.2%
17
157
Shire Development, Inc
194
Industry
1.9%
0.2%
18
203
Royal Society
150
Charity/
Foundation
1.5%
0.1%
19
259
Health Foundation
117
Charity/
Foundation
1.1%
0.1%
20
264
Parkinsons Disease Society UK
113
Charity/
Foundation
1.1%
0.1%
21
281
British Academy
109
Academia
1.1%
0.1%
22
290
Multiple Sclerosis Society, UK
105
Charity/
Foundation
1.0%
0.1%
23
294
BUPA Foundation UK
104
Charity/
Foundation
1.0%
0.1%
24
309
University of Bristol
100
Academia
1.0%
0.1%
25
315
Guys and St Thomas Charitable
Foundation
98
Charity/
Foundation
1.0%
0.1%
26
343
Sackler Foundation
87
Charity/
Foundation
0.8%
0.1%
27
346
Department for International
Development (DFID), UK
86
Government
0.8%
0.1%
28
351
Psychiatry Research Trust, UK
84
Academia
0.8%
0.1%
29
363
University of Edinburgh
80
Academia
0.8%
0.1%
30
366
Stroke Association (UK)
79
Charity/
Foundation
0.8%
0.1%
As for the global research landscape, we also developed network maps for the UK showing, firstly, all
UK funders based on their co-acknowledgement
on papers (Figure A2-3) and secondly, the funders
acknowledged on papers with a UK address
(Figure A2-4). The MRC, Wellcome Trust and
No. of
papers
Sector
53
NIHR are prominent in both networks, but the
network of UK funders also shows the diversity
of smaller charities, foundations and non-profits
engaged in mental health research. In Figure A2-4
US funders (in red) and other European funding
organisations are clearly visible.
54
Mapping the global mental health research funding system
Figure A2-3
Network of co-acknowledgement of all UK funders18
Lippincott Williams and Wilkins
WORD
Fidelity Found.
Oxford Uni Press
Reta Lila Weston Institute for...
National Institute for Mental ...
PSP association
Motor Neurone Disease Associat...
Wolfson Trust
Action Medical Research (UK)
Gates Cambridge Scholarship Tr...
AZ
Parkinsons Disease Society UK
Gatsby Charitable Found.
Uni of Oxford
British Medical Association
Uni of Leeds
DeNDRoN
Great Ormond Street Hospital C...
Royal College of Physicians/Du...
Baily Thomas Charitable Fund
UK Epilepsy Research Found.
British Council
Neuroscience Research Charitab...
Psychiatry Research Trust
Brain Research Trust
Cambridge Overseas Trust
Imperial College London
Scottish Charity
Reta Lila Weston Trust for Med...
Shirley Found.
Isaac Newton Trust Cambridge
McGraw Hill
Academy of Medical Sciences (UK)
Norman Collisson Found.
MS Society of Great Britain an...
NHS England
Comic Relief
Guys and St Thomas Charitable ...
Uni of Cambridge
NIHR
Manchester Mental Health and S...
Fragile X Found.
Big Lottery Fund
International College of OC Sp...
Seaver Found.
UKs Ministry of Defence
Uni of Southampton
Dunhill Medical Trust
Woods Family Trust
Charles Wolfson Charitable Trust
Muscular Dystrophy Campaign
UK Ministry of Justice
Arthritis Research Campaign
Tourettes Action
Clothworkers Found.
Henry Smith Charity & Epilepsy...
WT
Bernard Wolfe Health Neuroscie...
BUPA Found.
Pears Found.
MRC UK
AR UK
KCL
Schizophrenia Research Fund
Uni of Aberdeen
Shire
CRUK
NPSA, UK
British Health and Safety Exec...
GSK
Scottish Mental Health Researc...
UK DH
Uni of Nottingham
Health Found.
BHF UK
Sackler Found.
Alz. Society, UK
UK Health Protection Agency
Uni of Glasgow
Scottish Govt.
Age UK
Uni of Edinburgh
Technology Strategy Board Gran...
Nuffield Found.
Uni of Sheffield
P1 vital Ltd
Research Councils UK Fellowship
BBSRC
Unilever
Beckett-Found.
AHRC UK
Scottish Funding Council
Multiple Sclerosis Society
ESRC UK
Action on Addiction
NEURODEM Cymru
IPA
Royal Society Wolfson Merit Aw...
Uni of Birmingham
Liaison Committee
NPRI
Uni of Newcastle
VEGA
18 Coloured by modularity
W. Garfield Weston Found. grant
RCUK
Waterloo Found.
Uni of Essex
Cardiff Uni
Uni College London
Diabetes UK Project
Cambridge Uni Press
Higher Education Funding Counc...
National Assembly for Wales
EPSRC
Leverhulme Trust
WICN
Autistica
Uni of Bristol
SINAPSE
Glasgow Centre for Population ...
Reckitt Benckiser
BRACE
Sir Jules Thorn Charitable Trust
Welsh Assembly Govt.
UK Centre for Tobacco Control ...
British Geriatrics Society
Uni of Manchester
British Academy
Royal Society
DFID
Carman Trust
Bangor Uni
Beckley Found.
UK
Uni of London
Annex 2 – The UK
55
Figure A2-4
Network of co-acknowledged funders on UK papers in the entire mental health data set19
BUPA Foundation UK
NHLBI
NIH
BHF UK
Stroke Association
ESRC UK
Academy of Finland
NIA
NIBIB
CIHR
Nuffield Foundation, UK
AR UK
DFG
Alz Assoc.
University College London
ADNI
NIMH
University of Manchester, UK
SNSF
Waterloo Foundation
British Academy
CHDI
MRC UK
NIHR
Parkinsons Disease Society UK
Alzheimer Society, UK
BMBF
Welsh Assembly Government
UK Department of Health
EU
University of Bristol
NWO
Leverhulme Trust, UK
EPSRC
Big Lottery Fund, UK
Janssen
Lundbeck
Scottish Govt.
NHS England
Bial Foundation, Portugal
GSK
Sackler Foundation
University of Nottingham
BBRF
Cancer Research UK
WT
NIDA
ERC
SMRI
NHMRC
KCL
Merck
Psychiatry Research Trust, UK
SINAPSE
BBSRC
Lilly
Health Foundation
Pfizer
Guys and St Thomas Charitable Foundation
Royal Society
Key:
19 Coloured by country
USA
Taiwan
Iceland
UK
New Zealand
Estonia
Sweden
Ireland
Iran
Canada
Singapore
Colombia
Netherlands
Israel
Saudi Arabia
Australia
India
Slovakia
China
South Africa
Croatia
France
Czech Republic
Qatar
Germany
Poland
Venezuela
Japan
Turkey
Nigeria
Spain
Chile
Serbia
Finland
Hungary
Romania
Italy
Argentina
Slovenia
Denmark
Greece
Lebanon
Switzerland
Malaysia
Philippines
Belgium
Austria
Bulgaria
South Korea
Mexico
Pakistan
EU
Portugal
Lithuania
Norway
Russia
Brazil
Thailand
56
Mapping the global mental health research funding system
Finally, we carried out an analysis of the flows of
research funding into and out of the UK. In this
we used each paper’s funding acknowledgements
and corresponding author address as proxies for
the source and destination of research funds.
In these terms, the UK is a slight net ‘importer’
making 5,542 funding acknowledgements to overseas funders on papers in our data set. The largest
portion of these acknowledgements relate to US
funding organisations, although there is also a
substantial volume of papers acknowledging EU
support. This compares with 5,023 acknowledgements of UK funding on papers with a non-UK
corresponding address. Again, the largest portion
of these acknowledgements corresponds to papers
with a US address.
Figure A2-5
Flows of research funding: (i) UK funders supporting papers with corresponding authors outside
the UK and (ii) papers with UK corresponding authors acknowledging non-UK funding20
ZA
54
BD
13
TR
11
CH
84
FR
139
NL
273
BR
77
IE
148
AT
28
NZ
19
HR
11
NG
14
IS
16
Number of funding acknowledgements on
UK papers
ET
11
SI
11
CA
182
KE
14
NZ
20
SE
179
DK
124
CH
227
ES
185
PT
65
SG
22
IT
56
JP
56
BR
56
NO
28
BE
52
US
1725
JP
60
AU
370
CA
257
DK
89
IN
43
IT
145
CN
106
ES
124
TW
85
Number of acknowledgements of
UK funders on non-UK papers
EU
810
EE
11
KR
105
DE
306
AU
279
TW
12
SG
21
CN
38
NL
137
RU
13
EXPORT
IMPORT
FI
183
US
2349
NO
89
GR
21
BE
96
SE
122
IL
21
UG
11
20 Numbers represent individual acknowledgements, of which
there may be more than one on a paper. Countries with ten or more
acknowledgements are presented in the figure
HU
11
FR
120
FI
96
IL
16
IE
24
DE
250
Annex 3 – Funder acronyms
Acronym
Funder name
Acronym
Funder name
863 China
National 863 project of China
DFG
973 China
National 973 Program of China
ADNI
Alzheimer’s Disease
Neuroimaging Initiative
German Research
Foundation/Deutsche
Forschungsgemeinschaft
(Germany)
DHHS
AFSP
American Foundation for Suicide
Prevention
US Department of Health and
Human Services
DST, India
AHA
American Heart Association
Department of Science and
Technology, New Delhi, India
AIHS
Alberta Innovates – Health
Solutions
EPSRC
Engineering and Physical Sciences
Research Council (UK)
Alz Assoc.
Alzheimer’s Association
ERC
European Research Council
ANR
Agence Nationale de la Recherche
(France)
ERDF
European Regional Development
Fund
AR UK
Alzheimer’s Research UK
ESRC UK
Economic and Social Research
Council, UK
ARC
Australian Research Council
EU
European Commission
ASC
Alzheimer Society of Canada
FAPERGS
Australian Govt.
Australian Government,
Department of Health and
Ageing
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa
do Estado do Rio Grande do Sul
(Brazil)
FAPESP
BBRF
Brain and Behavior Research
Foundation (NARSAD)
Fundação de Amparo à Pesquisa
do Estado de Sao Paulo (Brazil)
FAS Sweden
BBSRC
Biotechnology and Biological
Sciences Research Council (UK)
Swedish Council for Working Life
and Social Research
FCT Portugal
BELSPO
Belgian Science Policy Office
Portuguese Fundação para a
Ciencia e a Tecnologia
BHF UK
British Heart Foundation UK
FIRCA
BMBF
Federal Ministry of Education and
Research (Germany)
Fogarty International Center of
the National Institutes of Health
(US)
FIS
BMS
Bristol-Myers-Squibb
National Institute of Health Carlos
III (Spain)
CAPES
Coordenação de
Aperfeiçoamento de Pessoal de
Nível Superior (Brazil)
FRM
Fondation pour la Recherche
Médicale (France)
FRQS
CFI
Canada Foundation for
Innovation
Fonds de recherche du Québec –
Santé
FWO-V
CHDI
Cure Huntington’s Disease
Initiative Foundation, Inc.
Fund for Scientific Research
Flanders
GSK
GlaxoSmithKline
CIHR
Canadian Institutes of Health
Research (CIHR)
HRB of Ireland
Health Research Board of Ireland
CNPq Brazil
CNPq Brazil
HRC
New Zealand Health Research
Council
CNRS
Centre national de la recherche
scientifique (France)
INSERM
Institut national de la santé et de
la recherche médicale (France)
CONACYT
Consejo Nacional en Ciencia y
Tecnología (Mexico)
ISF
Israeli Science Foundation
CRC
Canada Research Chair
Janssen
Janssen
58
Mapping the global mental health research funding system
Acronym
Funder name
Acronym
Funder name
JSPS
Japan Society for the Promotion
of Science
NIH
US National Institutes of Health
NIHR
National Institute for Health
Research (UK)
KCL
King’s College London
Lilly
Eli Lilly and Company
NIMH
MEC, Spain
Ministerio de Educacion y Ciencia
(Spain)
National Institute of Mental
Health (US)
NINDS
MEST Korea
Ministry of Education, Science
and Technology of the Republic
of Korea
National Institute of Neurological
Disorders and Stroke (US)
NINR
National Institute of Nursing
Research (US)
MEXT
Ministry of Education, Culture,
Sports, Science and Technology
in Japan
NOW
Netherlands Organization of
Scientific Research
MHLW Japan
Ministry of Health and Welfare,
Japan
NRC
Norwegian Research Council
NRF Korea
MHW Korea
Ministry of Health and Welfare
in Korea
National Research Foundation of
Korea
NSC Taiwan
MICINN
Spanish Ministry of Science and
Innovation
National Science Council in
Taiwan
NSERC
MIUR
Italian Ministry of Education
University and Research
Natural Sciences and Engineering
Research Council of Canada
NSFC
MOHLTC
Ontario Ministry of Health and
Long-Term Care
National Natural Science
Foundation of China
OMHF
Ontario Mental Health
Foundation
PAHO
Pan American Health
Organization
PHRC
French Ministry of Health
RWJF
Robert Wood Johnson
Foundation
MRC UK
UK Medical Research Council
MSFHR
Michael Smith Foundation for
Health Research (Canada)
NCATS
National Center for Advancing
Translational Science (US)
NCCAM
National Center for
Complementary and Alternative
Medicine (US)
SAMHSA
Substance Abuse and Mental
Health Services Administration
NCI
National Cancer Institute (US)
Scottish Govt.
NCRR
National Center for Research
Resources (US)
Scottish Government, Health
Department
SFARI
NHLBI
National Heart, Lung, and Blood
Institute (US)
Simons Foundation Autism
Research Initiative
SFI
Science Foundation Ireland
NHMRC
National Health and Medical
Research Council of Australia
SMRI
Stanley Medical Research Institute
NHS England
NHS England
NIA
National Institute on Aging (US)
NIAAA
National Institute on Alcohol
Abuse and Alcoholism (US)
NIAID
National Institute of Allergy and
Infectious Diseases (US)
NIBIB
National Institute of Biomedical
Imaging and Bioengineering (US)
SNSF
Swiss National Science Foundation
SRC
Swedish Research Council
SSHRC
Social Sciences and Humanities
Research Council (Canada)
US CDC
US Centers for Disease Control
and Prevention
US DOD
US Department of Defense
US NSF
US National Science Foundation
Eunice Kennedy Shriver National
Institute of Child Health and
Human Development (US)
US PHS
US Public Health Service
USAMRMC
US Army Medical Research &
Materiel Command
NIDA
National Institute on Drug Abuse
(US)
VA
Department of Veterans Affairs
(US)
NIDCD
National Institute on Deafness
and Other Communication
Disorders (US)
VU Amsterdam,
Netherlands
Vrije Universiteit Amsterdam,
Netherlands
NIDDK
National Institute of Diabetes and
Digestive and Kidney Diseases
(US)
VWS
Dutch Ministry of Health, Welfare
and Sports
WHO
World Health Organization
WT
Wellcome Trust
NICHD
NIEHS
National Institute of
Environmental Health Sciences
(US)
NIGMS
National Institute of General
Medical Sciences (US)
RR-1271-GBF