A Comparative Study On Funded Papers Of China And The USA In Public Health And Preventive Medicine

At the 19 th People’s Congress,the Communist Party of China emphasized the need to accelerate the construction of “Healthy China” strategy focusing on prevention.The outbreak of COVID-19 has also brought challenges and opportunities to the development of public health and preventive medicine,and discipline construction has become a topic at that time.The United States plays a core role in the field of public health and preventive medicine.Through literature investigation,it is found that no scholar has conducted acomparative study on the funding and papers of public health andpreventive medicine between China and the United States.Funding assistance is an important pillar of scientific research and discipline development.Funded papers are the concentrated embodiment of project research content and animportant index to measure the effect of fund support Based on the relevant theories of bibliometrics.This paper uses the methods of bibliometrics,social network analysis and comparative study to conduct a comparative study on the papers funded by the Public health and preventive medicine foundation of China and the United States from four dimensions of output number of funded papers,citation influence,cooperation network and research topic.From the macro level,the current status of public health and preventive medicine in China and the United States,the impact of paper output and citation of the fund projects,the characteristics of international and institutional cooperation network,and the research themes and development trends in this field were analyzed.On the otherhand,based on the comparison between China and the United States,the paper further discusses the existing problems of fund support and discipline research in the field of public health and preventive medicine in China from the micro level and puts forward policy suggestions,so as to comprehensively understand the development status of discipline and grasp the discipline development law.It provides reference for improving the funding model of public health and preventive medicine,improving the funding efficiency and promoting the development of public health and preventive medicine.Through the comparison between China and the United States,this paper draws the following four conclusions: First,the funding intensity of NSFC in China in the field ofpublic health and preventive medicine is much lower than NIH in the United States;Secondly,there is a big gap between the output and citation influence of NSFC in China and the United States,with problems of high quantity,low quality and low international influence.Third,China and the United States generally adopt the form of cooperative research.In international cooperation most of China’s NSEC partners are developed country.The United States is China’s largest partner,but the degree of international cooperation is low and the scope of cooperation is small.In terms of institutional cooperation,Chinese Academy of Sciences plays a core role.NSFC of China mainly focuses on internal cooperation,with little inter-institutional cooperation and small scale.Fourth,in terms ofresearch topics,environmental health,infectious diseases and chronic diseases are the common research topics of China and the United States.China’s NSFC focuses more on infectious virus research.The United States pays more attention to mental health and chronic disease research Environmental health is a common research trend of China and the United States in the future,but generally speaking,China lacks pioneering research in this field.In view of the existing problems,this paper puts forward four suggestions on how to improve the efficiency of public health and preventive medicine funding and promote research development.First,improve the funding intensity,broaden the funding channels and balance the funding structure;Second,perfect the evaluation system of scientific research projects,moderately increase the weight of the index of paper quality;Third,promote international exchanges,break through regional restrictions and strengthen crossregional cooperation;Fourth,promote interdisciplinary research,break through disciplinary barriers and promote innovative research.