The acceptability of using a lottery to allocate research funding: a survey of applicants View Full Text


Ontology type: schema:ScholarlyArticle      Open Access: True


Article Info

DATE

2020-02-03

AUTHORS

Mengyao Liu, Vernon Choy, Philip Clarke, Adrian Barnett, Tony Blakely, Lucy Pomeroy

ABSTRACT

Background: The Health Research Council of New Zealand is the first major government funding agency to use a lottery to allocate research funding for their Explorer Grant scheme. This is a somewhat controversial approach because, despite the documented problems of peer review, many researchers believe that funding should be allocated solely using peer review, and peer review is used almost ubiquitously by funding agencies around the world. Given the rarity of alternative funding schemes, there is interest in hearing from the first cohort of researchers to ever experience a lottery. Additionally, the Health Research Council of New Zealand wanted to hear from applicants about the acceptability of the randomisation process and anonymity of applicants. Methods: This paper presents the results of a survey of Health Research Council applicants from 2013 to 2019. The survey asked about the acceptability of using a lottery and if the lottery meant researchers took a different approach to their application. Results: The overall response rate was 39% (126 of 325 invites), with 30% (76 of 251) from applicants in the years 2013 to 2018, and 68% (50 of 74) for those in the year 2019 who were not aware of the funding result. There was agreement that randomisation is an acceptable method for allocating Explorer Grant funds with 63% (n = 79) in favour and 25% (n = 32) against. There was less support for allocating funds randomly for other grant types with only 40% (n = 50) in favour and 37% (n = 46) against. Support for a lottery was higher amongst those that had won funding. Multiple respondents stated that they supported a lottery when ineligible applications had been excluded and outstanding applications funded, so that the remaining applications were truly equal. Most applicants reported that the lottery did not change the time they spent preparing their application. Conclusions: The Health Research Council's experience through the Explorer Grant scheme supports further uptake of a modified lottery. More... »

PAGES

3

References to SciGraph publications

  • 2017-12-04. ‘Are you siding with a personality or the grant proposal?’: observations on how peer review panels function in RESEARCH INTEGRITY AND PEER REVIEW
  • 2019-11-20. Science funders gamble on grant lotteries in NATURE
  • 2015. Funding Science by Lottery in RECENT DEVELOPMENTS IN THE PHILOSOPHY OF SCIENCE: EPSA13 HELSINKI
  • 2018-09-18. Rethink Funding. in SCIENTIFIC AMERICAN
  • 2010-10-20. Surveys of current status in biomedical science grant review: funding organisations' and grant reviewers' perspectives in BMC MEDICINE
  • Identifiers

    URI

    http://scigraph.springernature.com/pub.10.1186/s41073-019-0089-z

    DOI

    http://dx.doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0089-z

    DIMENSIONS

    https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1124498269

    PUBMED

    https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pubmed/32025338


    Indexing Status Check whether this publication has been indexed by Scopus and Web Of Science using the SN Indexing Status Tool
    Incoming Citations Browse incoming citations for this publication using opencitations.net

    JSON-LD is the canonical representation for SciGraph data.

    TIP: You can open this SciGraph record using an external JSON-LD service: JSON-LD Playground Google SDTT

    [
      {
        "@context": "https://springernature.github.io/scigraph/jsonld/sgcontext.json", 
        "about": [
          {
            "id": "http://purl.org/au-research/vocabulary/anzsrc-for/2008/22", 
            "inDefinedTermSet": "http://purl.org/au-research/vocabulary/anzsrc-for/2008/", 
            "name": "Philosophy and Religious Studies", 
            "type": "DefinedTerm"
          }, 
          {
            "id": "http://purl.org/au-research/vocabulary/anzsrc-for/2008/2201", 
            "inDefinedTermSet": "http://purl.org/au-research/vocabulary/anzsrc-for/2008/", 
            "name": "Applied Ethics", 
            "type": "DefinedTerm"
          }
        ], 
        "author": [
          {
            "affiliation": {
              "alternateName": "Health Research Council of New Zealand, Auckland, New Zealand", 
              "id": "http://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.452999.a", 
              "name": [
                "Health Research Council of New Zealand, Auckland, New Zealand"
              ], 
              "type": "Organization"
            }, 
            "familyName": "Liu", 
            "givenName": "Mengyao", 
            "type": "Person"
          }, 
          {
            "affiliation": {
              "alternateName": "Health Research Council of New Zealand, Auckland, New Zealand", 
              "id": "http://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.452999.a", 
              "name": [
                "Health Research Council of New Zealand, Auckland, New Zealand"
              ], 
              "type": "Organization"
            }, 
            "familyName": "Choy", 
            "givenName": "Vernon", 
            "type": "Person"
          }, 
          {
            "affiliation": {
              "alternateName": "Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK", 
              "id": "http://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.4991.5", 
              "name": [
                "Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK"
              ], 
              "type": "Organization"
            }, 
            "familyName": "Clarke", 
            "givenName": "Philip", 
            "id": "sg:person.0734456474.38", 
            "sameAs": [
              "https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.0734456474.38"
            ], 
            "type": "Person"
          }, 
          {
            "affiliation": {
              "alternateName": "Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation & School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland Australia", 
              "id": "http://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.1024.7", 
              "name": [
                "Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation & School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland Australia"
              ], 
              "type": "Organization"
            }, 
            "familyName": "Barnett", 
            "givenName": "Adrian", 
            "id": "sg:person.012524527342.78", 
            "sameAs": [
              "https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.012524527342.78"
            ], 
            "type": "Person"
          }, 
          {
            "affiliation": {
              "alternateName": "Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria Australia", 
              "id": "http://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.1008.9", 
              "name": [
                "Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria Australia"
              ], 
              "type": "Organization"
            }, 
            "familyName": "Blakely", 
            "givenName": "Tony", 
            "id": "sg:person.0775731540.59", 
            "sameAs": [
              "https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.0775731540.59"
            ], 
            "type": "Person"
          }, 
          {
            "affiliation": {
              "alternateName": "Health Research Council of New Zealand, Auckland, New Zealand", 
              "id": "http://www.grid.ac/institutes/grid.452999.a", 
              "name": [
                "Health Research Council of New Zealand, Auckland, New Zealand"
              ], 
              "type": "Organization"
            }, 
            "familyName": "Pomeroy", 
            "givenName": "Lucy", 
            "type": "Person"
          }
        ], 
        "citation": [
          {
            "id": "sg:pub.10.1007/978-3-319-23015-3_9", 
            "sameAs": [
              "https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1015444704", 
              "https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23015-3_9"
            ], 
            "type": "CreativeWork"
          }, 
          {
            "id": "sg:pub.10.1186/1741-7015-8-62", 
            "sameAs": [
              "https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1045572691", 
              "https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-8-62"
            ], 
            "type": "CreativeWork"
          }, 
          {
            "id": "sg:pub.10.1186/s41073-017-0043-x", 
            "sameAs": [
              "https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1093130243", 
              "https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017-0043-x"
            ], 
            "type": "CreativeWork"
          }, 
          {
            "id": "sg:pub.10.1038/scientificamerican1018-52", 
            "sameAs": [
              "https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1107351144", 
              "https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1018-52"
            ], 
            "type": "CreativeWork"
          }, 
          {
            "id": "sg:pub.10.1038/d41586-019-03572-7", 
            "sameAs": [
              "https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1122755038", 
              "https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03572-7"
            ], 
            "type": "CreativeWork"
          }
        ], 
        "datePublished": "2020-02-03", 
        "datePublishedReg": "2020-02-03", 
        "description": "Background: The Health Research Council of New Zealand is the first major government funding agency to use a lottery to allocate research funding for their Explorer Grant scheme. This is a somewhat controversial approach because, despite the documented problems of peer review, many researchers believe that funding should be allocated solely using peer review, and peer review is used almost ubiquitously by funding agencies around the world. Given the rarity of alternative funding schemes, there is interest in hearing from the first cohort of researchers to ever experience a lottery. Additionally, the Health Research Council of New Zealand wanted to hear from applicants about the acceptability of the randomisation process and anonymity of applicants.\nMethods: This paper presents the results of a survey of Health Research Council applicants from 2013 to 2019. The survey asked about the acceptability of using a lottery and if the lottery meant researchers took a different approach to their application.\nResults: The overall response rate was 39% (126 of 325 invites), with 30% (76 of 251) from applicants in the years 2013 to 2018, and 68% (50 of 74) for those in the year 2019 who were not aware of the funding result. There was agreement that randomisation is an acceptable method for allocating Explorer Grant funds with 63% (n = 79) in favour and 25% (n = 32) against. There was less support for allocating funds randomly for other grant types with only 40% (n = 50) in favour and 37% (n = 46) against. Support for a lottery was higher amongst those that had won funding. Multiple respondents stated that they supported a lottery when ineligible applications had been excluded and outstanding applications funded, so that the remaining applications were truly equal. Most applicants reported that the lottery did not change the time they spent preparing their application.\nConclusions: The Health Research Council's experience through the Explorer Grant scheme supports further uptake of a modified lottery.", 
        "genre": "article", 
        "id": "sg:pub.10.1186/s41073-019-0089-z", 
        "inLanguage": "en", 
        "isAccessibleForFree": true, 
        "isFundedItemOf": [
          {
            "id": "sg:grant.7878690", 
            "type": "MonetaryGrant"
          }
        ], 
        "isPartOf": [
          {
            "id": "sg:journal.1053067", 
            "issn": [
              "2058-8615"
            ], 
            "name": "Research Integrity and Peer Review", 
            "publisher": "Springer Nature", 
            "type": "Periodical"
          }, 
          {
            "issueNumber": "1", 
            "type": "PublicationIssue"
          }, 
          {
            "type": "PublicationVolume", 
            "volumeNumber": "5"
          }
        ], 
        "keywords": [
          "Health Research Council", 
          "overall response rate", 
          "response rate", 
          "randomisation process", 
          "first cohort", 
          "acceptable method", 
          "acceptability", 
          "Research Council", 
          "review", 
          "research funding", 
          "funding results", 
          "peer review", 
          "randomisation", 
          "cohort", 
          "year 2013", 
          "survey of applicants", 
          "controversial approach", 
          "rarity", 
          "survey", 
          "most applicants", 
          "less support", 
          "further uptake", 
          "New Zealand", 
          "grant types", 
          "experience", 
          "grant funds", 
          "funding", 
          "funding agencies", 
          "uptake", 
          "year 2019", 
          "respondents", 
          "support", 
          "favor", 
          "rate", 
          "government funding agencies", 
          "results", 
          "multiple respondents", 
          "Zealand", 
          "Council", 
          "types", 
          "time", 
          "applicants", 
          "agencies", 
          "grant scheme", 
          "approach", 
          "researchers", 
          "different approaches", 
          "method", 
          "alternative funding schemes", 
          "interest", 
          "funding schemes", 
          "lottery", 
          "world", 
          "applications", 
          "process", 
          "problem", 
          "funds", 
          "agreement", 
          "anonymity", 
          "paper", 
          "scheme", 
          "outstanding applications", 
          "first major government funding agency", 
          "major government funding agency", 
          "Explorer Grant scheme", 
          "anonymity of applicants", 
          "Explorer Grant funds", 
          "ineligible applications", 
          "Health Research Council's experience", 
          "Research Council's experience", 
          "Council's experience", 
          "modified lottery"
        ], 
        "name": "The acceptability of using a lottery to allocate research funding: a survey of applicants", 
        "pagination": "3", 
        "productId": [
          {
            "name": "dimensions_id", 
            "type": "PropertyValue", 
            "value": [
              "pub.1124498269"
            ]
          }, 
          {
            "name": "doi", 
            "type": "PropertyValue", 
            "value": [
              "10.1186/s41073-019-0089-z"
            ]
          }, 
          {
            "name": "pubmed_id", 
            "type": "PropertyValue", 
            "value": [
              "32025338"
            ]
          }
        ], 
        "sameAs": [
          "https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0089-z", 
          "https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1124498269"
        ], 
        "sdDataset": "articles", 
        "sdDatePublished": "2022-01-01T18:55", 
        "sdLicense": "https://scigraph.springernature.com/explorer/license/", 
        "sdPublisher": {
          "name": "Springer Nature - SN SciGraph project", 
          "type": "Organization"
        }, 
        "sdSource": "s3://com-springernature-scigraph/baseset/20220101/entities/gbq_results/article/article_833.jsonl", 
        "type": "ScholarlyArticle", 
        "url": "https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0089-z"
      }
    ]
     

    Download the RDF metadata as:  json-ld nt turtle xml License info

    HOW TO GET THIS DATA PROGRAMMATICALLY:

    JSON-LD is a popular format for linked data which is fully compatible with JSON.

    curl -H 'Accept: application/ld+json' 'https://scigraph.springernature.com/pub.10.1186/s41073-019-0089-z'

    N-Triples is a line-based linked data format ideal for batch operations.

    curl -H 'Accept: application/n-triples' 'https://scigraph.springernature.com/pub.10.1186/s41073-019-0089-z'

    Turtle is a human-readable linked data format.

    curl -H 'Accept: text/turtle' 'https://scigraph.springernature.com/pub.10.1186/s41073-019-0089-z'

    RDF/XML is a standard XML format for linked data.

    curl -H 'Accept: application/rdf+xml' 'https://scigraph.springernature.com/pub.10.1186/s41073-019-0089-z'


     

    This table displays all metadata directly associated to this object as RDF triples.

    196 TRIPLES      22 PREDICATES      103 URIs      90 LITERALS      7 BLANK NODES

    Subject Predicate Object
    1 sg:pub.10.1186/s41073-019-0089-z schema:about anzsrc-for:22
    2 anzsrc-for:2201
    3 schema:author Na44356e6613d4ab7819600c85374e5bf
    4 schema:citation sg:pub.10.1007/978-3-319-23015-3_9
    5 sg:pub.10.1038/d41586-019-03572-7
    6 sg:pub.10.1038/scientificamerican1018-52
    7 sg:pub.10.1186/1741-7015-8-62
    8 sg:pub.10.1186/s41073-017-0043-x
    9 schema:datePublished 2020-02-03
    10 schema:datePublishedReg 2020-02-03
    11 schema:description Background: The Health Research Council of New Zealand is the first major government funding agency to use a lottery to allocate research funding for their Explorer Grant scheme. This is a somewhat controversial approach because, despite the documented problems of peer review, many researchers believe that funding should be allocated solely using peer review, and peer review is used almost ubiquitously by funding agencies around the world. Given the rarity of alternative funding schemes, there is interest in hearing from the first cohort of researchers to ever experience a lottery. Additionally, the Health Research Council of New Zealand wanted to hear from applicants about the acceptability of the randomisation process and anonymity of applicants. Methods: This paper presents the results of a survey of Health Research Council applicants from 2013 to 2019. The survey asked about the acceptability of using a lottery and if the lottery meant researchers took a different approach to their application. Results: The overall response rate was 39% (126 of 325 invites), with 30% (76 of 251) from applicants in the years 2013 to 2018, and 68% (50 of 74) for those in the year 2019 who were not aware of the funding result. There was agreement that randomisation is an acceptable method for allocating Explorer Grant funds with 63% (<i>n</i> = 79) in favour and 25% (<i>n</i> = 32) against. There was less support for allocating funds randomly for other grant types with only 40% (<i>n</i> = 50) in favour and 37% (<i>n</i> = 46) against. Support for a lottery was higher amongst those that had won funding. Multiple respondents stated that they supported a lottery when ineligible applications had been excluded and outstanding applications funded, so that the remaining applications were truly equal. Most applicants reported that the lottery did not change the time they spent preparing their application. Conclusions: The Health Research Council's experience through the Explorer Grant scheme supports further uptake of a modified lottery.
    12 schema:genre article
    13 schema:inLanguage en
    14 schema:isAccessibleForFree true
    15 schema:isPartOf N07761a9d25df4e8cac24955060aa9c32
    16 N5ccb479833394bcd873d962484218170
    17 sg:journal.1053067
    18 schema:keywords Council
    19 Council's experience
    20 Explorer Grant funds
    21 Explorer Grant scheme
    22 Health Research Council
    23 Health Research Council's experience
    24 New Zealand
    25 Research Council
    26 Research Council's experience
    27 Zealand
    28 acceptability
    29 acceptable method
    30 agencies
    31 agreement
    32 alternative funding schemes
    33 anonymity
    34 anonymity of applicants
    35 applicants
    36 applications
    37 approach
    38 cohort
    39 controversial approach
    40 different approaches
    41 experience
    42 favor
    43 first cohort
    44 first major government funding agency
    45 funding
    46 funding agencies
    47 funding results
    48 funding schemes
    49 funds
    50 further uptake
    51 government funding agencies
    52 grant funds
    53 grant scheme
    54 grant types
    55 ineligible applications
    56 interest
    57 less support
    58 lottery
    59 major government funding agency
    60 method
    61 modified lottery
    62 most applicants
    63 multiple respondents
    64 outstanding applications
    65 overall response rate
    66 paper
    67 peer review
    68 problem
    69 process
    70 randomisation
    71 randomisation process
    72 rarity
    73 rate
    74 research funding
    75 researchers
    76 respondents
    77 response rate
    78 results
    79 review
    80 scheme
    81 support
    82 survey
    83 survey of applicants
    84 time
    85 types
    86 uptake
    87 world
    88 year 2013
    89 year 2019
    90 schema:name The acceptability of using a lottery to allocate research funding: a survey of applicants
    91 schema:pagination 3
    92 schema:productId N8565330d07b846afbfa94c3284a04f57
    93 Naffa78e3095446d295c0109e75f0c071
    94 Nca50d9496985485a912dbe43f44487d7
    95 schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1124498269
    96 https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0089-z
    97 schema:sdDatePublished 2022-01-01T18:55
    98 schema:sdLicense https://scigraph.springernature.com/explorer/license/
    99 schema:sdPublisher N56b8e6a0a5f741d2a7d4cd8353152dee
    100 schema:url https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-019-0089-z
    101 sgo:license sg:explorer/license/
    102 sgo:sdDataset articles
    103 rdf:type schema:ScholarlyArticle
    104 N07761a9d25df4e8cac24955060aa9c32 schema:issueNumber 1
    105 rdf:type schema:PublicationIssue
    106 N17a7b10d30524d73b47fb0e41ce8e27b schema:affiliation grid-institutes:grid.452999.a
    107 schema:familyName Choy
    108 schema:givenName Vernon
    109 rdf:type schema:Person
    110 N362fceaa54bc4a9fa26b4f135cc697da schema:affiliation grid-institutes:grid.452999.a
    111 schema:familyName Liu
    112 schema:givenName Mengyao
    113 rdf:type schema:Person
    114 N3db69424c3db47c283d064250af7d8d4 rdf:first sg:person.0734456474.38
    115 rdf:rest Na6b04d053f074cdd90cda244aa499293
    116 N56b8e6a0a5f741d2a7d4cd8353152dee schema:name Springer Nature - SN SciGraph project
    117 rdf:type schema:Organization
    118 N5ccb479833394bcd873d962484218170 schema:volumeNumber 5
    119 rdf:type schema:PublicationVolume
    120 N7e72654f430a40a5a6ce0fe23f571191 rdf:first sg:person.0775731540.59
    121 rdf:rest Nfcda28cf36c746c994e5ba9c58eb43f2
    122 N8565330d07b846afbfa94c3284a04f57 schema:name dimensions_id
    123 schema:value pub.1124498269
    124 rdf:type schema:PropertyValue
    125 N8aac73f9b1444ac9948cb9c447e68523 schema:affiliation grid-institutes:grid.452999.a
    126 schema:familyName Pomeroy
    127 schema:givenName Lucy
    128 rdf:type schema:Person
    129 Na44356e6613d4ab7819600c85374e5bf rdf:first N362fceaa54bc4a9fa26b4f135cc697da
    130 rdf:rest Nd904841758f84fd08066097830617a2e
    131 Na6b04d053f074cdd90cda244aa499293 rdf:first sg:person.012524527342.78
    132 rdf:rest N7e72654f430a40a5a6ce0fe23f571191
    133 Naffa78e3095446d295c0109e75f0c071 schema:name doi
    134 schema:value 10.1186/s41073-019-0089-z
    135 rdf:type schema:PropertyValue
    136 Nca50d9496985485a912dbe43f44487d7 schema:name pubmed_id
    137 schema:value 32025338
    138 rdf:type schema:PropertyValue
    139 Nd904841758f84fd08066097830617a2e rdf:first N17a7b10d30524d73b47fb0e41ce8e27b
    140 rdf:rest N3db69424c3db47c283d064250af7d8d4
    141 Nfcda28cf36c746c994e5ba9c58eb43f2 rdf:first N8aac73f9b1444ac9948cb9c447e68523
    142 rdf:rest rdf:nil
    143 anzsrc-for:22 schema:inDefinedTermSet anzsrc-for:
    144 schema:name Philosophy and Religious Studies
    145 rdf:type schema:DefinedTerm
    146 anzsrc-for:2201 schema:inDefinedTermSet anzsrc-for:
    147 schema:name Applied Ethics
    148 rdf:type schema:DefinedTerm
    149 sg:grant.7878690 http://pending.schema.org/fundedItem sg:pub.10.1186/s41073-019-0089-z
    150 rdf:type schema:MonetaryGrant
    151 sg:journal.1053067 schema:issn 2058-8615
    152 schema:name Research Integrity and Peer Review
    153 schema:publisher Springer Nature
    154 rdf:type schema:Periodical
    155 sg:person.012524527342.78 schema:affiliation grid-institutes:grid.1024.7
    156 schema:familyName Barnett
    157 schema:givenName Adrian
    158 schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.012524527342.78
    159 rdf:type schema:Person
    160 sg:person.0734456474.38 schema:affiliation grid-institutes:grid.4991.5
    161 schema:familyName Clarke
    162 schema:givenName Philip
    163 schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.0734456474.38
    164 rdf:type schema:Person
    165 sg:person.0775731540.59 schema:affiliation grid-institutes:grid.1008.9
    166 schema:familyName Blakely
    167 schema:givenName Tony
    168 schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/discover/publication?and_facet_researcher=ur.0775731540.59
    169 rdf:type schema:Person
    170 sg:pub.10.1007/978-3-319-23015-3_9 schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1015444704
    171 https://doi.org/10.1007/978-3-319-23015-3_9
    172 rdf:type schema:CreativeWork
    173 sg:pub.10.1038/d41586-019-03572-7 schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1122755038
    174 https://doi.org/10.1038/d41586-019-03572-7
    175 rdf:type schema:CreativeWork
    176 sg:pub.10.1038/scientificamerican1018-52 schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1107351144
    177 https://doi.org/10.1038/scientificamerican1018-52
    178 rdf:type schema:CreativeWork
    179 sg:pub.10.1186/1741-7015-8-62 schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1045572691
    180 https://doi.org/10.1186/1741-7015-8-62
    181 rdf:type schema:CreativeWork
    182 sg:pub.10.1186/s41073-017-0043-x schema:sameAs https://app.dimensions.ai/details/publication/pub.1093130243
    183 https://doi.org/10.1186/s41073-017-0043-x
    184 rdf:type schema:CreativeWork
    185 grid-institutes:grid.1008.9 schema:alternateName Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria Australia
    186 schema:name Melbourne School of Population and Global Health, University of Melbourne, Melbourne, Victoria Australia
    187 rdf:type schema:Organization
    188 grid-institutes:grid.1024.7 schema:alternateName Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation & School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland Australia
    189 schema:name Institute of Health and Biomedical Innovation & School of Public Health and Social Work, Queensland University of Technology, Brisbane, Queensland Australia
    190 rdf:type schema:Organization
    191 grid-institutes:grid.452999.a schema:alternateName Health Research Council of New Zealand, Auckland, New Zealand
    192 schema:name Health Research Council of New Zealand, Auckland, New Zealand
    193 rdf:type schema:Organization
    194 grid-institutes:grid.4991.5 schema:alternateName Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
    195 schema:name Health Economics Research Centre, Nuffield Department of Population Health, University of Oxford, Oxford, UK
    196 rdf:type schema:Organization
     




    Preview window. Press ESC to close (or click here)


    ...