ArticleCureus2025
Funding Trends and Gender Disparities in Tanzanian Biomedical Research: Insights From Global Health Funding Databases.
Article in Cureus, 2025. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 1 paper.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
1 citing paper in PubMed.
- Experience in the adoption of Research Electronic Data Capture (REDCap) as a tool for medical research in Tanzania.medRxiv : the preprint server for health sciences · 2025Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
7 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Background Research funding is crucial for advancing scientific knowledge and innovation. Understanding patterns and trends in research funding, including potential gender disparities, can provide valuable insights for policymakers, funding agencies, and researchers. This study aimed to analyze the distribution of research funding in Tanzania, identify major contributors, uncover trends over the past years, and examine gender disparities among principal investigators (PIs). Methods Data from the National Institutes of Health (NIH) funding database and World RePORT were utilized. Data cleaning and preprocessing ensured consistency and accuracy, with funding amounts converted to common currency (USD) for analysis. Statistical and trend analyses were performed to identify key patterns, focusing on funding distribution by research organization, funding organization, fiscal year, type of record, and PI gender. Results A total of $218,409,329 were distributed across 438 projects led by 324 unique PIs. Male PIs accounted for 228 (70.4%), females for 91 (28.1%), and five (1.5%) were of unspecified gender. Collaborative projects comprised 374 entries ($158,121,528.60), and direct funding accounted for 64 projects ($60,287,799.96). The European and Developing Countries Clinical Trials Partnership contributed the most ($165,598,586; 75.8%), followed by the Wellcome Trust ($12,282,858; 5.6%) and the European Commission ($12,017,629; 5.5%). Funding rose steadily, peaking in 2020 and 2022 at over US $40 million. The National Institute for Medical Research received the highest total cost (US$95,453,357; 43.7%). Male PIs led more projects and received $49,038,802, compared to $22,475,127 for female PIs. In 2023, however, female PIs received more funding ($5,517,171) than male PIs ($4,354,089), reversing previous trends. Conclusions Research funding in Tanzania remains concentrated among a few institutions and is dominated by one major donor. Although overall funding has increased, significant gender disparities persist. The 2023 shift toward greater female PI funding is promising but requires sustained policy attention. These insights can inform equitable research and investment strategies for Tanzania.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What Socratic holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the Socratic graph.