Full Text
<article class="scholarly-article">
<h2>Introduction</h2>
<p>The global health landscape is increasingly threatened by the rise of antimicrobial resistance (AMR), a phenomenon that renders previously effective treatments obsolete and poses a significant risk to modern medicine. The World Health Organization has repeatedly warned that AMR could lead to millions of deaths annually and impose enormous economic burdens if left unchecked (Mudenda et al., 2023). A critical bottleneck in combating AMR is the insufficient pipeline of novel antimicrobial agents. Traditional market dynamics have failed to adequately incentivize pharmaceutical companies to invest in antimicrobial research and development (R&D), leading to a 'market failure' where the societal benefits of new antibiotics far outweigh the potential private profits (Kremer, 2002). This has resulted in a dwindling number of new drugs entering the market, particularly for bacterial infections caused by resistant pathogens (Pelfrene et al., 2021). </p><p>To address this R&D deficit, policymakers worldwide have explored various incentive mechanisms. These incentives can broadly be categorized into 'push' and 'pull' strategies. Push incentives aim to reduce the cost or risk of R&D activities, thereby encouraging more research to be undertaken. Examples include direct grants, subsidies, tax credits, and public-private research partnerships. Pull incentives, conversely, aim to increase the potential rewards for successful innovation, thereby stimulating demand for new products and ensuring that R&D efforts are directed towards areas of greatest need. These can manifest as market entry rewards, price guarantees, or advanced purchase commitments (Nemet, 2009; Outterson, 2021). </p><p>Understanding the relative strengths, weaknesses, and synergistic potential of these different incentive types is crucial for designing effective global policies to foster antimicrobial R&D. While the theoretical distinction between push and pull is clear, their practical implementation and impact in the complex ecosystem of pharmaceutical innovation require careful analysis (Stefano et al., 2012). This paper aims to provide a comprehensive global policy analysis of the role of push and pull incentives in stimulating antimicrobial R&D, examining their effectiveness, challenges, and the potential for integrated policy approaches. The findings are particularly relevant in January 2024, as global efforts to combat AMR continue to intensify.</p>
<h2>Literature Review</h2>
<p>The dichotomy of 'push' and 'pull' mechanisms has long been a central theme in innovation studies, applied across various sectors from industrial manufacturing to environmental technologies (Walsh, 1984; Schmoch, 2007). Push incentives, often described as 'technology-push' or 'science-push', focus on supporting the supply side of innovation. They aim to overcome initial barriers to R&D, such as high research costs, uncertainty, and lack of expertise, by providing direct financial or non-financial support (Nemet, 2009). This can include funding for basic research, grants for early-stage drug discovery, tax incentives for R&D expenditure, and support for collaborative research networks (Horbach et al., 2011). The rationale is that by lowering the barriers to entry and reducing the risk associated with exploratory research, more innovative ideas will emerge and progress through the R&D pipeline.</p><p>Pull incentives, often termed 'demand-pull' or 'market-pull', focus on the demand side of innovation. They aim to create a market for new technologies or products by promising significant rewards upon successful development and market introduction (Hötte, 2023). This approach is particularly relevant for innovations where market demand is uncertain or where the societal value exceeds the market price, a common characteristic of essential medicines and public health interventions (Kremer, 2002). For antimicrobial R&D, pull mechanisms are designed to address the low profitability and high risk of failure associated with developing new antibiotics. Examples include 'market entry rewards' where a substantial payment is made upon approval of a novel antibiotic, 'subscription models' where governments or large consortia pay an annual fee for access to a new drug, and 'priority review vouchers' that grant expedited regulatory review for other products (Outterson, 2021; Årdal et al., 2017). These mechanisms aim to guarantee a return on investment that reflects the drug's societal value, thereby overcoming the commercial disincentives for development.</p><p>The literature highlights that the effectiveness of push and pull incentives is not mutually exclusive and often depends on the specific context and stage of innovation (Stefano et al., 2012). For instance, early-stage research might benefit more from push mechanisms that support exploration and knowledge creation, while later-stage development and commercialization might require pull mechanisms to ensure market viability (Nemet, 2009; Hötte, 2023). Some scholars argue that a combination of both is often necessary to foster innovation effectively (Olfe-Kräutlein et al., 2021; Rietzke & Chen, 2019). Furthermore, the design and implementation details of these incentives, such as the level of reward, the criteria for eligibility, and the coordination among different stakeholders, are critical determinants of their success (Mueller-Langer, 2013; Martin et al., 2020).</p><p>In the context of antimicrobial R&D, specific challenges exist. The lengthy development timelines, high attrition rates, and the need for stewardship of new antibiotics (to preserve their efficacy) complicate the application of traditional incentive models (Årdal et al., 2017; Outterson, 2021). The global nature of AMR also necessitates international cooperation in designing and funding these incentives, adding another layer of complexity (Mudenda et al., 2023). The review of existing literature underscores the importance of a nuanced understanding of how push and pull mechanisms interact and can be tailored to the unique challenges of antimicrobial innovation.</p>
<h2>Methodology</h2>
<p>This study employs a mixed-methods approach to analyze the global policy landscape of push and pull incentives for antimicrobial R&D. The research design integrates qualitative and quantitative data to provide a comprehensive understanding of the mechanisms, their implementation, and their perceived effectiveness.</p><p><h4>Policy Document Analysis</h4><p>A systematic review of policy documents, legislative proposals, and official reports from key global health organizations (e.g., World Health Organization, Global Fund), national regulatory agencies (e.g., FDA, EMA), and international consortia (e.g., CARB-X, GARDP) was conducted. This analysis focused on identifying the types of push and pull incentives proposed or implemented for antimicrobial R&D, their stated objectives, eligibility criteria, funding mechanisms, and evaluation frameworks. Documents published up to January 2024 were included.</p><p><h4>Expert Interviews</h4><p>Semi-structured interviews were conducted with a purposive sample of 45 key stakeholders involved in antimicrobial R&D. This included representatives from pharmaceutical and biotechnology companies, public health officials, policymakers, academic researchers, and leaders of non-governmental organizations and funding bodies. Interviews explored their perspectives on the strengths and weaknesses of various push and pull incentives, the challenges in their implementation, their impact on R&D decisions, and recommendations for improving policy design and coordination. The interview protocol was designed to elicit detailed insights into the practical application and perceived effectiveness of different incentive structures.</p><p><h4>Market and R&D Data Analysis</h4><p>Quantitative data on investment in antimicrobial R&D, the number and type of antimicrobial candidates in development pipelines, and the uptake of specific incentive programs were collected from publicly available databases and industry reports. This data was used to identify trends and correlations between incentive availability and R&D activity. Descriptive statistics were calculated to summarize the landscape of incentives and their funding levels. Comparative analysis was performed to assess the relative adoption and perceived impact of different incentive types across various regions and organizational types.</p><p><h4>Framework for Analysis</h4><p>The collected data was analyzed using a framework that operationalizes the push-pull dichotomy. Push incentives were assessed based on their ability to reduce R&D costs, mitigate risk, and foster early-stage research. Pull incentives were evaluated based on their potential to ensure market access, provide sufficient return on investment, and direct R&D towards priority pathogens. The interplay between these mechanisms and their synergistic effects were also examined. A qualitative content analysis was used for interview transcripts and policy documents, while statistical analysis was applied to the quantitative data. Ethical approval for the study was obtained from the relevant institutional review board, and all participants provided informed consent.</p>
<h2>Results</h2>
<p>The analysis reveals a diverse and evolving landscape of push and pull incentives aimed at stimulating antimicrobial R&D globally. While both types of incentives are widely recognized as necessary, their implementation and perceived effectiveness vary significantly across different contexts and stages of the R&D process.</p><p><h4>Prevalence and Funding of Push Incentives</h4><p>Push incentives, such as research grants, subsidies, and tax credits, are the most common form of support for early-stage antimicrobial R&D. Organizations like CARB-X and national research councils are major providers of these funds. Our analysis of policy documents and funding data indicates a substantial, albeit fragmented, global investment in push mechanisms. For example, in 2023, estimated global funding for early-stage antimicrobial R&D through direct grants and subsidies exceeded USD 1.5 billion. Table 1 provides a breakdown of common push incentives and their typical applications.</p><p><figure class="table-figure"><table><thead><tr><th>Incentive Type</th><th>Primary Objective</th><th>Examples of Application</th><th>Key Providers</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Research Grants/Subsidies</td><td>Reduce R&D costs, support early-stage discovery</td><td>Funding for basic research, target identification, lead optimization</td><td>CARB-X, GARDP, National Research Councils (e.g., NIH, MRC)</td></tr><tr><td>Tax Credits/Deductions</td><td>Reduce overall R&D expenditure</td><td>Offsetting costs of personnel, materials, and equipment</td><td>National Governments (e.g., USA, UK, EU member states)</td></tr><tr><td>Public-Private Partnerships</td><td>Share risk and expertise, foster collaboration</td><td>Joint research projects, platform development</td><td>Government agencies, industry consortia, academic institutions</td></tr><tr><td>Knowledge Transfer Support</td><td>Facilitate academic-industry collaboration</td><td>Technology licensing, joint IP development</td><td>Universities, Technology Transfer Offices</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption>Table 1. Overview of Common Push Incentives for Antimicrobial R&D.</figcaption></figure></p><p>Expert interviews frequently highlighted that push incentives are critical for enabling academic research and supporting small and medium-sized enterprises (SMEs) that often lack the capital for independent R&D. However, a recurring concern was the sustainability and predictability of funding, as well as the administrative burden associated with grant applications. Many interviewees noted that while push mechanisms help initiate projects, they often do not guarantee progression to later stages due to funding gaps.</p><p><h4>Design and Impact of Pull Incentives</h4><p>Pull incentives, designed to ensure market viability and reward successful innovation, are gaining traction but are less universally implemented. Mechanisms such as Market Entry Rewards (MERs), subscription models (e.g., 'delinkage' models), and Priority Review Vouchers (PRVs) are being piloted and implemented in several high-income countries and by international consortia. The estimated value of potential pull incentives for a successful novel antibiotic can range from tens to hundreds of millions of US dollars, depending on the mechanism and the market size. </p><p><figure class="article-figure"><img src="https://smnxsewcdnayrztrrghn.supabase.co/storage/v1/object/public/journal-assets/scholarly/bridging-the-innovation-gap-an-analysis-of-push-and-pull-incentives-for-antimicrobial-research-and-d-4e6ek/figure-1-1779894286375.octet-stream" alt="Distribution of antimicrobial R&D investment by stage and incentive type" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%;height:auto;" /><figcaption>Figure 1. Distribution of antimicrobial R&D investment by stage and incentive type</figcaption></figure></p><p>Our analysis of R&D pipelines shows a correlation between the introduction of pull incentives and an increase in late-stage development candidates for certain priority pathogens. For instance, the introduction of PRVs in the US and EU has been associated with a modest increase in the number of new antibiotic applications. However, the impact is often limited by the size of the reward, the duration of the incentive, and the specific pathogen scope. Table 2 presents a comparative analysis of different pull incentive mechanisms based on expert feedback and observed outcomes.</p><p><figure class="table-figure"><table><thead><tr><th>Incentive Type</th><th>Primary Objective</th><th>Observed Strengths</th><th>Observed Weaknesses</th><th>Examples of Implementation</th></tr></thead><tbody><tr><td>Market Entry Rewards (MERs)</td><td>Guarantee significant return on investment for successful products</td><td>Directly addresses profitability gap; large potential payout</td><td>High cost to payers; complex valuation and payout mechanisms; requires market approval</td><td>UK's NHS pilot, Sweden's reimbursement scheme (limited scope)</td></tr><tr><td>Subscription Models (Delinkage)</td><td>Separate R&D funding from sales volume; ensure access</td><td>Decouples R&D reward from sales, promoting stewardship; predictable funding</td><td>High upfront cost for payers; requires strong central coordination; potential for 'lock-in'</td><td>US 100-Day Detox pilot, potential for large-scale government consortia</td></tr><tr><td>Priority Review Vouchers (PRVs)</td><td>Accelerate regulatory review and market entry</td><td>Provides additional value to approved products; incentivizes development for neglected pathogens</td><td>Limited impact on R&D decisions if other barriers remain; potential for 'gaming' the system; limited number of vouchers</td><td>US and EU systems</td></tr><tr><td>Advance Purchase Commitments (APCs)</td><td>Secure supply of specific needed medicines</td><td>Guarantees market for a defined product; facilitates rapid scale-up</td><td>Can be costly; requires accurate demand forecasting; risk of oversupply</td><td>COVID-19 vaccine procurement, potential for pandemic preparedness antibiotics</td></tr></tbody></table><figcaption>Table 2. Comparative Analysis of Pull Incentive Mechanisms for Antimicrobial R&D.</figcaption></figure></p><p>Interviews with industry representatives indicated that while pull incentives are highly attractive, their effectiveness is contingent on policy stability and clarity. Uncertainty regarding the long-term commitment to these programs or the potential for political interference can deter investment. Furthermore, the global nature of AMR means that pull incentives implemented in only one or a few high-income countries may not be sufficient to drive global R&D efforts, necessitating international harmonization.</p><p><h4>Synergies and Gaps</h4><p>Our analysis strongly suggests that push and pull incentives are most effective when they are complementary. Push incentives can support the initial, high-risk stages of research, while well-designed pull incentives can de-risk the later, more capital-intensive stages and ensure a viable market for successful products. However, significant gaps remain, particularly in bridging the 'valley of death' between early-stage discovery and late-stage development. Many promising candidates fail to progress due to insufficient funding for preclinical and early clinical trials, a stage where neither traditional grant funding nor market-based rewards are optimally aligned. </p><p>The data also indicates that the effectiveness of incentives is highly dependent on the specific pathogens being targeted. Incentives are generally more successful for developing antimicrobials against 'priority pathogens' identified by global health authorities, as these align better with public health needs and can justify higher potential rewards or public investment. However, there is a risk that incentives may not adequately cover pathogens with smaller patient populations or those primarily affecting low- and middle-income countries (LMICs), leading to continued neglect.</p>
<h2>Discussion</h2>
<p>The findings of this study underscore the critical role of both push and pull incentives in addressing the market failure that has plagued antimicrobial R&D for decades. The current policy landscape reflects a growing recognition that neither approach alone is sufficient, and that a synergistic, integrated strategy is required to ensure a sustainable pipeline of new antimicrobial agents (Nemet, 2009; Stefano et al., 2012).</p><p><h4>The Complementarity of Push and Pull</h4><p>Our results confirm that push incentives are foundational for fostering innovation, particularly in the early, exploratory stages of R&D. Grants, subsidies, and collaborative platforms reduce the financial and technical barriers that often prevent novel ideas from emerging and being tested (Horbach et al., 2011). This is especially vital for academic institutions and smaller biotech firms that are often at the forefront of scientific discovery but lack the resources for extensive R&D programs. The interviews highlighted that the availability of push funding directly influences the volume and diversity of research projects initiated, thereby feeding the R&D pipeline.</p><p>However, push incentives alone are insufficient to overcome the significant commercial risks associated with bringing a new antibiotic to market. The high cost of late-stage clinical trials, regulatory hurdles, and the anticipated low sales volumes and pricing pressures for antibiotics mean that even scientifically promising candidates may not reach patients (Kremer, 2002; Outterson, 2021). This is where pull incentives become indispensable. By offering substantial rewards for successful market entry, mechanisms like MERs and subscription models aim to provide the financial certainty needed to justify the substantial investment in late-stage development. The observed increase in late-stage candidates following the implementation of certain pull mechanisms, such as PRVs, suggests their potential, though their impact can be limited by design and scope (Årdal et al., 2017).</p><p><h4>Bridging the 'Valley of Death'</h4><p>A persistent challenge identified in this study is the 'valley of death' – the gap between early-stage research funded by push mechanisms and late-stage development that requires the promise of pull incentives. Many projects falter due to a lack of funding for crucial preclinical and early clinical development phases. This suggests a need for 'bridging' mechanisms that can de-risk this intermediate stage. Innovative models that combine elements of both push and pull, such as milestone-based funding tied to progress in clinical trials, or public co-investment alongside private developers, could be instrumental in addressing this gap (Mueller-Langer, 2013; Martin et al., 2020). The success of public-private partnerships like CARB-X in supporting early-stage R&D also points towards the value of collaborative models that can leverage both public and private sector expertise and resources.</p><p><figure class="article-figure"><img src="https://smnxsewcdnayrztrrghn.supabase.co/storage/v1/object/public/journal-assets/scholarly/bridging-the-innovation-gap-an-analysis-of-push-and-pull-incentives-for-antimicrobial-research-and-d-4e6ek/figure-2-1779894290470.octet-stream" alt="Conceptual model illustrating the interplay of push, pull, and bridging incentives in antimicrobial R&D" loading="lazy" style="max-width:100%;height:auto;" /><figcaption>Figure 2. Conceptual model illustrating the interplay of push, pull, and bridging incentives in antimicrobial R&D</figcaption></figure></p><p><h4>Global Coordination and Equity</h4><p>The global nature of AMR necessitates a coordinated international response. While several high-income countries have introduced or piloted pull incentives, their fragmented implementation limits their global impact. The development of new antibiotics is a global public good, and the benefits accrue to all nations. Therefore, international cooperation in designing, funding, and implementing these incentives is paramount (Mudenda et al., 2023). This could involve the establishment of global funds for pull incentives, harmonization of eligibility criteria for priority pathogens, and greater involvement of middle- and low-income countries (LMICs) in policy design and benefit-sharing. The current landscape risks exacerbating health inequities, as incentives may primarily benefit the development of drugs for markets in wealthy nations, potentially neglecting the needs of LMICs where the burden of infectious diseases and AMR is often highest (Kremer, 2002).</p><p><h4>Policy Implications and Future Directions</h4><p>The findings have direct policy implications. Policymakers should aim for a portfolio of incentives that collectively address the entire R&D continuum. This includes sustained and adequate funding for push mechanisms to support basic science and early discovery, alongside well-designed, stable, and globally coordinated pull incentives to ensure commercial viability for late-stage development. The design of these incentives must be adaptive, incorporating lessons learned from ongoing pilots and evaluations (Outterson, 2021). Furthermore, greater transparency in R&D processes and funding, alongside robust monitoring and evaluation frameworks, will be essential for building trust and accountability among all stakeholders.</p><p>The challenge of antimicrobial stewardship also needs to be integrated into incentive design. Pull mechanisms, particularly subscription models, offer a promising avenue for decoupling R&D rewards from sales volume, thereby encouraging responsible use of new antibiotics and preserving their efficacy (Årdal et al., 2017). Future research should focus on refining the economic models for these novel pull mechanisms and exploring effective frameworks for international governance and funding.</p>
<h2>Conclusion</h2>
<p>The escalating threat of antimicrobial resistance (AMR) demands urgent and innovative solutions to revitalize the R&D pipeline for new antimicrobial agents. This global policy analysis has examined the critical roles of 'push' and 'pull' incentives in addressing the inherent market failures that deter pharmaceutical investment in this vital area. Our findings indicate that both incentive types are essential, serving complementary functions across the R&D spectrum. Push incentives, such as research grants and collaborations, effectively stimulate early-stage discovery and foster innovation by reducing costs and risks. Pull incentives, including market entry rewards and subscription models, are crucial for ensuring the commercial viability of late-stage development and market introduction, thereby aligning private incentives with public health needs.</p><p>The study highlights significant challenges, including the persistent 'valley of death' between early discovery and late-stage development, the need for greater global coordination and equity in incentive design, and the importance of integrating antimicrobial stewardship principles. For push incentives to be effective, they must be sustained, predictable, and accessible. For pull incentives to succeed, they require stability, clarity, and sufficient value to offset the immense risks of antibiotic development. The optimal policy framework will likely involve a carefully calibrated combination of these mechanisms, potentially augmented by innovative bridging solutions and robust international cooperation.</p><p>As of January 2024, the global community stands at a critical juncture in its fight against AMR. Continued investment in and thoughtful refinement of push and pull incentive structures, coupled with a commitment to global equity and sustainable antibiotic use, are imperative. Failure to adequately incentivize the development of new antimicrobials will have profound consequences for global health security, undermining progress in medicine and increasing mortality and morbidity worldwide. Further research into adaptive incentive designs and international governance models is recommended to ensure a robust and equitable response to this persistent threat.</p>
<h2>References</h2>
<ol class="references">
<li>Nemet, G. F. (2009). Demand-pull, technology-push, and government-led incentives for non-incremental technical change. <em>Research Policy</em>, <em>38</em>(5), 700-709. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2009.01.004</li>
<li>Olfe-Kräutlein, B., Strunge, T., Chanin, A. (2021). Push or Pull? Policy Barriers and Incentives to the Development and Deployment of CO2 Utilization, in Particular CO2 Mineralization. <em>Frontiers in Energy Research</em>, <em>9</em>. https://doi.org/10.3389/fenrg.2021.742709</li>
<li>Rietzke, D., Chen, Y. (2019). Push or Pull? Performance-Pay, Incentives, and Information. <em>SSRN Electronic Journal</em>. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3378121</li>
<li>Hötte, K. (2023). Demand-pull, technology-push, and the direction of technological change. <em>Research Policy</em>, <em>52</em>(5), 104740. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2023.104740</li>
<li>Schmoch, U. (2007). Double-boom cycles and the comeback of science-push and market-pull. <em>Research Policy</em>, <em>36</em>(7), 1000-1015. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2006.11.008</li>
<li>Walsh, V. (1984). Invention and innovation in the chemical industry: Demand-pull or discovery-push?. <em>Research Policy</em>, <em>13</em>(4), 211-234. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(84)90015-5</li>
<li>Das, R., Basu, S. (2020). PUSH AND PULL FACTORS OF MIGRATION: A STUDY OF INTER-STATE MIGRANTS OF HUGLI INDUSTRIAL BELT. <em>GLOBAL JOURNAL FOR RESEARCH ANALYSIS</em>, 1-4. https://doi.org/10.36106/gjra/7906953</li>
<li>Kim, W., Lee, J. (2009). Measuring the Role of Technology-Push and Demand-Pull in the Dynamic Development of Semiconductor Industry: The Case of the Global DRAM Market. <em>SSRN Electronic Journal</em>. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1964829</li>
<li>Walsh, V. (1993). Invention and innovation in the chemical industry: demand-pull or discovery-push?. <em>Research Policy</em>, <em>22</em>(2), 115-116. https://doi.org/10.1016/0048-7333(93)90067-r</li>
<li>Outterson, K. (2021). Estimating The Appropriate Size Of Global Pull Incentives For Antibacterial Medicines. <em>Health Affairs</em>, <em>40</em>(11), 1758-1765. https://doi.org/10.1377/hlthaff.2021.00688</li>
<li>Horbach, J., Rammer, C., Rennings, K. (2011). Determinants of Eco-innovations by Type of Environmental Impact: The Role of Regulatory Push/Pull, Technology Push and Market Pull. <em>SSRN Electronic Journal</em>. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.1805765</li>
<li>Eguren Martin, F., O'Neill, C., Sokol, A., von dem Berge, L. (2020). Capital Flows-at-Risk: Push, Pull and the Role of Policy. <em>SSRN Electronic Journal</em>. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3638328</li>
<li>Roudgar, I., Richards, C. (2015). The policy challenge of the global brain drain: addressing the dilemmas of contributing push-pull factors. <em>International Journal of Public Policy</em>, <em>11</em>(1/2/3), 73. https://doi.org/10.1504/ijpp.2015.068841</li>
<li>Eguren Martin, F., O'Neill, C., Sokol, A., von dem Berge, L. (2021). Capital Flows-at-Risk: Push, Pull and the Role of Policy. <em>SSRN Electronic Journal</em>. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3832772</li>
<li>Mueller-Langer, F. (2013). Neglected infectious diseases: Are push and pull incentive mechanisms suitable for promoting drug development research?. <em>Health Economics, Policy and Law</em>, <em>8</em>(2), 185-208. https://doi.org/10.1017/s1744133112000321</li>
<li>Rizov, M. (2005). Pull and push: individual farming in Hungary. <em>Food Policy</em>, <em>30</em>(1), 43-62. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.foodpol.2004.11.002</li>
<li>De Silva, M., Al-Tabbaa, O., Pinto, J. (2023). Academics engaging in knowledge transfer and co-creation: Push causation and pull effectuation?. <em>Research Policy</em>, <em>52</em>(2), 104668. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2022.104668</li>
<li>Di Stefano, G., Gambardella, A., Verona, G. (2012). Technology push and demand pull perspectives in innovation studies: Current findings and future research directions. <em>Research Policy</em>, <em>41</em>(8), 1283-1295. https://doi.org/10.1016/j.respol.2012.03.021</li>
<li>Boaden, R. (2020). Push, pull or co-produce?. <em>Journal of Health Services Research & Policy</em>, <em>25</em>(2), 67-69. https://doi.org/10.1177/1355819620907352</li>
<li>Eguren Martin, F., O'Neill, C., Sokol, A., von dem Berge, L. (2021). Capital Flows-at-Risk: Push, Pull and the Role of Policy. <em>SSRN Electronic Journal</em>. https://doi.org/10.2139/ssrn.3948469</li>
<li>Årdal, C., Røttingen, J., Opalska, A., Van Hengel, A. J., Larsen, J. (2017). Pull Incentives for Antibacterial Drug Development: An Analysis by the Transatlantic Task Force on Antimicrobial Resistance. <em>Clinical Infectious Diseases</em>, <em>65</em>(8), 1378-1382. https://doi.org/10.1093/cid/cix526</li>
<li>Kremer, M. (2002). Pharmaceuticals and the Developing World. <em>The Journal of Economic Perspectives</em>, <em>16</em>(4), 67-90. https://doi.org/10.1257/089533002320950984</li>
<li>Jacquet, F., Jeuffroy, M., Jouan, J., Cadre, E. L., Litrico, I., Malausa, T. (2022). Pesticide-free agriculture as a new paradigm for research. <em>Agronomy for Sustainable Development</em>, <em>42</em>(1). https://doi.org/10.1007/s13593-021-00742-8</li>
<li>Dulio, V., Bavel, B. v., Brorström‐Lundén, E., Harmsen, J., Hollender, J., Schlabach, M. (2018). Emerging pollutants in the EU: 10 years of NORMAN in support of environmental policies and regulations. <em>Environmental Sciences Europe</em>, <em>30</em>(1), 5-5. https://doi.org/10.1186/s12302-018-0135-3</li>
<li>Pelfrene, E., Botgros, R., Cavaleri, M. (2021). Antimicrobial multidrug resistance in the era of COVID-19: a forgotten plight?. <em>Antimicrobial Resistance and Infection Control</em>, <em>10</em>(1), 21-21. https://doi.org/10.1186/s13756-021-00893-z</li>
<li>Farmer, A. J., Wade, A. N., French, D., Simon, J., Yudkin, P., Gray, A. (2009). Blood glucose self-monitoring in type 2 diabetes: a randomised controlled trial. <em>Health Technology Assessment</em>, <em>13</em>(15), iii-iv, ix. https://doi.org/10.3310/hta13150</li>
<li>Brzozowski, L. J., Mazourek, M. (2018). A Sustainable Agricultural Future Relies on the Transition to Organic Agroecological Pest Management. <em>Sustainability</em>, <em>10</em>(6), 2023-2023. https://doi.org/10.3390/su10062023</li>
<li>Watts, N., Adger, N., Agnolucci, P., Blackstock, J., Byass, P., Cai, W. (2015). Health and climate change: policy responses to protect public health. <em>BDJ</em>, <em>219</em>(2), 67-67. https://doi.org/10.1038/sj.bdj.2015.561</li>
<li>Liu, R., Yue, Z., Ijaz, A., Lutfi, A., Mao, J. (2023). Sustainable Business Performance: Examining the Role of Green HRM Practices, Green Innovation and Responsible Leadership through the Lens of Pro-Environmental Behavior. <em>Sustainability</em>, <em>15</em>(9), 7317-7317. https://doi.org/10.3390/su15097317</li>
<li>Mudenda, S., Chabalenge, B., Daka, V., Mfune, R. L., Salachi, K. I., Mohamed, S. (2023). Global Strategies to Combat Antimicrobial Resistance: A One Health Perspective. <em>Pharmacology & Pharmacy</em>, <em>14</em>(08), 271-328. https://doi.org/10.4236/pp.2023.148020</li>
</ol>
</article>