This Review sets out to propose a structure for the funding arrangements for the whole spectrum of health research, with the objective of obtaining the maximum benefit from research success and, where possible, eliminating duplication of effort. The Review found, however, that the UK is at risk of failing to reap the full economic, health and social benefits that the UK's public investment in health research should generate. There is no overarching UK health research strategy to ensure UK health priorities are considered through all types of research and there are two key gaps in the translation of health research: (i) translating ideas from basic and clinical research into the development of new products and approaches to treatment of disease and illness; (ii) implementing those new products and approaches into clinical practice.The Review also found that the wider funding arrangements for supporting translation of ideas from conception to practice could be more coherent or comprehensive and, where arrangements exist, they do not function well. The Review identified cultural, institutional and financial barriers to translating research into practice in the publicly funded research arena. But it also found that, in the private sector, the pharmaceuticals industry is facing increasing challenges in translating research into health and economic benefit. The Review has sought to make recommendations that will increase the translation of R&D into health and economic benefit for the UK, both in the public and private sectors. The Review recommends that the Government should seek to achieve better coordination of health research and more coherent funding arrangements to support translation by establishing an Office for Strategic Coordination of Health Research (OSCHR).

This issue of the newsletter 'Research Matters' includes articles on modernising medical careers, Diabetes Research Public Symposium, UK health research funding, as well as final reports and funded research.

This report sets out the findings of a study funded by the Department of Health and Social Care (DHSC) to map the landscape of funding for research in work and health in the UK since 2015. This study responds to results of Health is everyone's business consultations by the DHSC and Department for Work and Pensions and aims to help all stakeholders better understand the existing work and health research funding landscape. Methodologically this study entailed desk research to identify and review publicly available databases and information requested from key funders, and semi-structured interviews with work and health researchers and funders. This report is likely of interest to research funders, researchers and policymakers as well as those working in research or healthcare provision related to work and health.

In the realm of health care, privacy protections are needed to preserve patients' dignity and prevent possible harms. Ten years ago, to address these concerns as well as set guidelines for ethical health research, Congress called for a set of federal standards now known as the HIPAA Privacy Rule. In its 2009 report, Beyond the HIPAA Privacy Rule: Enhancing Privacy, Improving Health Through Research, the Institute of Medicine's Committee on Health Research and the Privacy of Health Information concludes that the HIPAA Privacy Rule does not protect privacy as well as it should, and that it impedes important health research.

What are public health services? Countries across Europe understand what they are or what they should include differently. This study describes the experiences of nine countries detailing the ways they have opted to organize and finance public health services and train and employ their public health workforce. It covers England France Germany Italy the Netherlands Slovenia Sweden Poland and the Republic of Moldova and aims to give insights into current practice that will support decision-makers in their efforts to strengthen public health capacities and services. Each country chapter captures the historical background of public health services and the context in which they operate; sets out the main organizational structures; assesses the sources of public health financing and how it is allocated; explains the training and employment of the public health workforce; and analyses existing frameworks for quality and performance assessment. The study reveals a wide range of experience and variation across Europe and clearly illustrates two fundamentally different approaches to public health services: integration with curative health services (as in Slovenia or Sweden) or organization and provision through a separate parallel structure (Republic of Moldova). The case studies explore the context that explain this divergence and its implications. This study is the result of close collaboration between the European Observatory on Health Systems and Policies and the WHO Regional Office for Europe Division of Health Systems and Public Health. It accompanies two other Observatory publications Organization and financing of public health services in Europe and The role of public health organizations in addressing public health problems in Europe: the case of obesity alcohol and antimicrobial resistance (both forthcoming).

The Cooksey Review ("A review of UK health research funding", ISBN 9780118404884), published in December 2006, was commissioned by the Chancellor of the Exchequer to examine the best design and institutional arrangements for a new single funding system for UK health research. The Committee's report supports the decision by Sir David Cooksey to broaden his review beyond its original terms of reference to make wider recommendations for the UK health research framework, for example relating to healthcare treatment priorities, as well as outlining a number of tasks for the Office of Science and Innovation to address. The Review found that although good progress has been made in some areas, further work is needed to ensure that publicly-funded health research is carried out in the most effective and efficient way and to facilitate translation of research findings into health and economic benefits. Amongst its recommendations, the Review proposed that a new body should be established, the Office for Strategic Coordination of Health Research (OSCHR), as the central co-ordinating body for all health research carried out by the NHS and the Medical Research Council. The Committee raises some concerns that although the pharmaceutical sector is of great importance, allied health research such as medical engineering and technology, preventive and public health research should not be overlooked. It also calls on the OSCHR to operate as a light touch organisation that does not complicate the existing successful administrative mechanisms of the Medical Research Council. More information on the Cooksey Review can be found at http://www.hm-treasury.gov.uk/independent_reviews/cooksey_review/cookseyreview_index.cfm

The Science and Technology Committee today agrees with, and commends, the scientific vision for the new UK Centre for Medical Research and Innovation, but expresses reservations about the project's location. It says the case for the centre's central London location near St Pancras station was not overwhelming and it could have been sited elsewhere. The advantages of co-location with universities and hospitals and access to good transport links, which the Committee accepts play a fundamental role in the centre's vision, come at a price: extra construction costs; a site incapable of expansion; and the concentration of medical sciences in the 'golden triangle' in the south of England. On the issue of funding, the Committee's concerns about the project's costs were assuaged by evidence from the Government that the taxpayer will not be liable to any further costs should the project overrun. On the management structure, the committee was told that an experienced team with a proven track record were now taking charge. The Committee is sympathetic to the local community's concerns about the project, and recognises attempts made by the centre's management to engage with the local community, but says it is saddened that efforts have not been as successful as they might have been. One way some benefit could accrue back to the local community is to ensure that the land released from the National Temperance Hospital site (the original site intended for the UKCMRI) is used for housing, including social housing.