National natural science foundation of China funding patterns and policy implications for obstetrics and gynecology research: a decade of trends (2011-2020).

Data on funded projects in the field of obstetrics and gynecology were primarily retrieved from the official information disclosure system of NSFC ( https://www.nsfc.gov.cn ) and the LetPub Research Funding Database ( http://www.letpub.com.cn ), covering the period from January 1, 2011, to December 31, 2020 (Wu et al., 2021 ). All publicly disclosed funding categories were included, such as the Young Scientists Fund, General Programs, Key Programs, Major Programs, Excellent Young Scientists Fund, Distinguished Young Scholars Fund, and International Cooperation Projects to ensure a comprehensive representation of the NSFC’s support landscape in this field. The discipline classification was determined based on the Medical Science Division’s reproductive system, perinatal medicine, and neonatology categories (e.g. H04). To ensure data accuracy, the project titles, host institutions, project types, and discipline codes were cross-validated and filtered. Scientific publication data were collected from PubMed ( https://pubmed.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov ) and Web of Science Core Collection. Searches were conducted using institutional affiliations, relevant research keywords (e.g. ‘obstetrics’ and ‘gynecology’), and publication dates ranging from 2011 to 2020. The retrieved information included article titles, author affiliations, publication year, and journal impact factor (IF) at the time of publication. All NSFC project data were compiled and categorised using Microsoft Excel 2019 based on key metrics, such as project year, funding type, and funding amount. Descriptive statistical analysis was conducted to summarise funding trends in obstetrics and gynecology over a ten-year period (Nie et al., 2019 ). The total number of SCI-indexed publications from each institution from 2011 to 2020 was extracted, and high-impact publications (defined as IF ≥ 5) were further identified. An annual mapping matrix was constructed to represent the publication volume and quality for each institution. To evaluate the alignment between funding and research output, the top 10 institutions in terms of NSFC-funded projects were compared with the top 10 institutions by the number of high-impact SCI publications during the same period. Specifically, for each year, the top 10 institutions with the highest number of NSFC-funded projects and the top 10 institutions with the highest number of high-impact SCI publications were identified. The overlap rate was then calculated by determining the number of institutions that appeared in both lists and expressing it as a percentage of 10.The overlap rate between the two rankings was calculated to assess the degree of consistency between funding allocation and scientific productivity (Facchinetti et al., 2015 ). Quantitative assessments were performed for each funding category to analyze the project volume, funding distribution by year, and institutional affiliations of recipients. Special emphasis was placed on the distribution patterns of high-level programmes, such as Key Programs, Major Programs, Excellent Young Scientists Fund, and Distinguished Young Scholars Fund, as indicators of academic maturity and development in the discipline. Descriptive statistical methods were applied to evaluate the core indicators, including the number of funded projects, total funding amounts, and institutional distribution. Time-series plots were generated to visualise annual trends, and proportional analyses were conducted to assess the composition of different funding types. Research focus trends were identified using keyword frequency analysis tools, including Weiciyun ( https://www.weiciyun.com ), by extracting high-frequency terms from project titles to explore the thematic patterns. All statistical analyses were conducted using SPSS version 19.0 software (Lei et al., 2019 ), and visual representations were produced using Microsoft Excel. A combination of systematic analytical techniques and visualisation tools was used to ensure the accuracy and clarity of the results. To explore the implications for drug policy and pharmacological outcomes, results were interpreted in the context of national research priorities in therapeutics and alignment of funding mechanisms with clinically relevant drug development efforts in the field.

Between 2011 and 2020, the NSFC funded 2,238 projects in obstetrics and gynecology, with a cumulative investment of 1,024.37 million RMB (Chinese Currency). As shown in Figure 1 , both the number of funded projects and the total funding amount demonstrated an overall upward trend despite minor fluctuations. The number of projects has increased from 155 in 2011–271 in 2020, with an average annual growth rate of approximately 6.2%. The peak years were observed in 2015 (240 projects) and 2020 (271 projects). Concurrently, funding rose from 65.09 million RMB in 2011–109.93 million RMB in 2020, peaking at 114.85 million RMB in 2017. These data highlight the growing commitment to advancing basic research in this field ( Figure 1 ). Figure 1. Annual number of funded projects (line) and total funding amount in ten thousand RMB (bars) for obstetrics and gynecology under the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), 2011–2020. Annual number of funded projects (line) and total funding amount in ten thousand RMB (bars) for obstetrics and gynecology under the National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC), 2011–2020. The structural composition of the funded projects during this period was dominated by basic research categories. The Young Scientists Fund and General Program accounted for 88.96% of the projects, forming the foundation of the NSFC's investment strategy ( Figure 2 ). Conversely, high-tier funding mechanisms such as Key Programs, Major Programs, Excellent Young Scientists Fund, and Distinguished Young Scholars Fund were limited to only 47 projects (2.10%) ( Table 1 ). Figure 2. Distribution of NSFC project types in obstetrics and gynecology (2011-2020). Table 1. Number of NSFC-funded projects and total funding in obstetrics and gynecology by project type, 2011–2020. Project Type No. of Projects (%, n = 2,238) Total Funding (10,000 RMB, %) Young Scientists Fund 1,025 (45.80%) 21,534 (21.02%) General Programme 966 (43.16%) 56,092 (54.76%) Regional Science Fund 166 (7.42%) 6,548 (6.39%) Key Programme 28 (1.25%) 8,091 (7.90%) International (Regional) Cooperation & Exchange 25 (1.12%) 2,123.45 (2.07%) Excellent Young Scientists Fund 8 (0.36%) 970 (0.95%) Major Programme 6 (0.27%) 3,600 (3.51%) Distinguished Young Scholars Fund 5 (0.22%) 1,550 (1.51%) Joint Fund Project 4 (0.18%) 580 (0.57%) Major Research Plan 4 (0.18%) 299 (0.29%) Innovation Research Group Fund 1 (0.04%) 1,050 (1.03%) Total 2,238 (100%) 102,437.45 (100%) *Note: Project percentage refers to the number of each type of project divided by the total number of NSFC-funded projects in obstetrics and gynecology from 2011 to 2020; funding percentage refers to the funding amount for each type divided by the total funding amount during the same period. NSFC: National Science Foundation of China. Distribution of NSFC project types in obstetrics and gynecology (2011-2020). Number of NSFC-funded projects and total funding in obstetrics and gynecology by project type, 2011–2020. *Note: Project percentage refers to the number of each type of project divided by the total number of NSFC-funded projects in obstetrics and gynecology from 2011 to 2020; funding percentage refers to the funding amount for each type divided by the total funding amount during the same period. NSFC: National Science Foundation of China. In terms of funding allocation, General Programs received the largest share (560.92 million RMB), followed by the Young Scientists Fund (215.34 million RMB), Key Programs (80.91 million RMB), and Regional Science Fund (65.48 million RMB). Funding for other categories such as international cooperation, joint funds, and talent-driven programmes remained modest. These findings indicate a sustained emphasis on broad-based foundational research, while signalling the underrepresentation of elite and large-scale collaborative efforts ( Table 1 ). Figure 3 shows the longitudinal trends according to funding category. The number of Young Scientists Fund projects has increased markedly from 76 in 2011–134 in 2020, consistently exceeding 100 annually since 2015. General Program projects fluctuated slightly between 110 and 122 from 2015 and 2020, peaking in 2017. Among high-level programmes, Key Program projects range from one to six annually, with a peak in 2016. Major Program support was limited to six awards in 2014, and no additional awards were issued thereafter. Excellent and Distinguished Young Scientists Fund projects remained limited to fewer than one project per year on average, peaking at two projects in 2019 ( Figure 3 ). Figure 3. Annual trends of NSFC project types in obstetrics and gynecology (2011-2020) NSFC: National Science Foundation of China. Annual trends of NSFC project types in obstetrics and gynecology (2011-2020) NSFC: National Science Foundation of China. From 2011 to 2020, 157 host institutions received NSFC funding for obstetric and gynecology projects. As shown in Table 2 , all the top ten institutions in terms of project count were universities. The distribution of host institutions revealed significant ‘top-heavy’ clustering and a marked regional imbalance. Shanghai Jiao Tong University ranked first with 185 projects (totalling 78.61 million RMB), including 109 Young Scientists Fund projects, 69 General Program projects, and 3 Key Programs, making it the only institution to host more than three Key Programs. Despite ranking fourth in total project count (134 projects, 65.27 million RMB), Fudan University hosted two Excellent Young Scientists Fund projects, one Major Program, and three Key Programs, with high-level programmes accounting for 5.2% of its total, the highest proportion among the top 10 institutions. Table 2. Top 10 host institutions for NSFC-funded projects in obstetrics and gynecology (2011–2020). Institution Innovation Research Group Fund Intl. Cooperation & Exchange Distinguished Young Scholars Joint Fund Project General Programme Young Scientists Fund Excellent Young Scientists Fund Major Programme Major Research Plan Key Programme Total Projects Total Funding (10,000 RMB) Shanghai Jiao Tong University   1 1   69 109   2   3 185 7,861 Zhejiang University   3   1 77 59       1 141 6,656 Nanjing Medical University   1 1   48 84       1 135 5,160.2 Fudan University   5 1   51 69 2 1 2 3 134 6,527.25 Peking University   1 1   50 49   1 1 2 1,066 6,417.7 Huazhong University of Science and Technology         38 51       1 90 3,207.5 Chongqing Medical University   5     26 51         82 2,955.8 Shandong University         42 36 2     1 81 3,774.5 Sichuan University         39 35       2 76 3,532 Sun Yat-sen University   1     34 33         68 2,632.5 Top 10 host institutions for NSFC-funded projects in obstetrics and gynecology (2011–2020). Among central and western institutions, only Chongqing Medical University (82 projects, 29.56 million RMB) and Sichuan University (76 projects, 35.32 million RMB) entered the top 10. However, high-level projects in these regions remain scarce. Sichuan University secured only two Key Programs, while the other institutions were predominantly supported by the Young Scientists Fund and General Program categories. The spatial distribution of project intensity is shown in Figure 4 . A heatmap representation revealed that top-tier project categories (e.g. Key Programs, talent schemes) were predominantly concentrated in elite eastern institutions, with significantly lower intensity in institutions from the central and western regions. This highlights a strong geographic coupling between funding prestige and institutional hierarchy. Institutions in eastern China have maintained a competitive edge in areas such as maternal-fetal immunology, pharmacogenomics in obstetric care, and drug innovation in assisted reproductive technologies. In contrast, institutions in other regions have mainly focused on local health priorities such as plateau pregnancy and gynecological diseases among ethnic minorities. Such imbalances may further deepen the regional disparities in research capacity ( Figure 4 ). Figure 4. Heatmap of NSFC-Funded Projects by Host Institution in Obstetrics and Gynecology (2011–2020). Darker shades indicate institutions with a higher number of funded projects, showing regional concentration and disparities in funding distribution across China. Heatmap of NSFC-Funded Projects by Host Institution in Obstetrics and Gynecology (2011–2020). Darker shades indicate institutions with a higher number of funded projects, showing regional concentration and disparities in funding distribution across China. From 2011 to 2020, the total volume of SCI-indexed publications in obstetrics and gynecology was concentrated in a few leading institutions. Fudan University led with 912 publications, followed by Shanghai Jiao Tong University (868), and Peking University (807). Collectively, the top 10 institutions contributed 6,395 publications ( Figure 5 ), with eight of these institutions located in economically developed eastern regions (e.g. Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangdong). Sichuan University was the sole top-tier contributor from central to west. This pattern reflects the strong correlation between scientific output and regional economic development. Figure 5. Total number of SCI publications (2011-2020), Top 10 institutions. Total number of SCI publications (2011-2020), Top 10 institutions. The analysis of high-impact publications (IF ≥ 5) revealed a higher concentration. As shown in Figure 6 , Sun Yat-sen University ranked first (112 publications), followed by Shanghai Jiao Tong University, Peking University, and Central South University, respectively. Compared to the total publication rankings, Figure 6 reveals a more pronounced concentration among top-tier institutions: the top four institutions each produced over 70 high-impact publications, whereas Zhengzhou University, ranked tenth, had only 24. From a productivity perspective, institutions such as Shanghai Jiao Tong University and Peking University, as well as the top three in NSFC project funding, ranked among the top three for both total publications and high-IF articles, reflecting a strong positive correlation between research inputs and outputs. However, Central South University, with 72 high-IF publications, ranked fourth, and Zhengzhou University entered the top ten with 24 such articles, suggesting that some institutions have achieved high output through the development of specialised disciplines or interdisciplinary collaboration. Figure 6. Number of high impact factor (IF ≥ 5) SCI publications (2011-2020), Top 10 institutions. Number of high impact factor (IF ≥ 5) SCI publications (2011-2020), Top 10 institutions. A keyword cloud was generated using Weiciyun to identify common themes in NSFC-funded projects ( Figure 7 ). Frequently occurring terms included ‘endometriosis (Vincent & Horne, 2025 ),’ ‘gestational diabetes mellitus (Rickert et al., 2023 ),’ and ‘estrogen (Zhang et al., 2023 ),’ reflecting priority areas that overlap with pharmacological research, including hormonal therapies (e.g. estrogen), drug management of metabolic disorders during pregnancy (e.g. gestational diabetes mellitus), and inflammation-targeting treatments in endometriosis. Figure 7. Keyword cloud of NSFC-funded projects in obstetrics and gynecology (2011-2020). Keyword cloud of NSFC-funded projects in obstetrics and gynecology (2011-2020). To assess the alignment between funding and productivity, annual overlaps were calculated between the top ten NSFC-funded institutions and the top ten institutions for IF ≥ 5 publications. As shown in Figure 8 , the overlap rate fluctuated over time, peaking at 70% in 2012 and 2020 and dipping to 50% in 2014 and 2017. The overall average is 61%, suggesting a partial but inconsistent alignment between funding and high-impact scientific output. These temporal variations may be influenced by institutional performance shifts, funding policy adjustments, or publication lags after project completion. Figure 8. Yearly overlap rate between the top 10 NSFC-funded institutions and the top 10 institutions by number of high-impact (impact factor IF ≥ 5) SCI publications in obstetrics and gynecology (2011-2020). Yearly overlap rate between the top 10 NSFC-funded institutions and the top 10 institutions by number of high-impact (impact factor IF ≥ 5) SCI publications in obstetrics and gynecology (2011-2020).

Conceptualisation: Dan Li, Xinyuan Chen. Methodology: Dan Li, Xinyuan Chen. Investigation: Xinyuan Chen, Yue Dong. Formal analysis: Dan Li, Liwei Zou. Writing – original draft: Dan Li, Xinyuan Chen. Writing – review & editing: Dan Li, Xinyuan Chen, Yue Dong, Liwei Zou. Supervision: Dan Li. Funding acquisition: Dan Li, Xinyuan Chen. All authors read and approved the final manuscript.

The National Natural Science Foundation of China (NSFC) has long served as the cornerstone of China’s basic research funding system, playing a key role in advancing scientific research in the medical and health domains, fostering discipline development, and cultivating research talent ( T. N. N. S. F. o. China ). In recent years, as national priorities have increasingly focused on research quality, innovation capacity, and translational impact, the NSFC has progressively optimised its management and evaluation mechanisms. The assessment paradigm has shifted from a purely output-oriented model to a comprehensive performance-based framework, with reduced emphasis on publication counts, academic titles, and awards as sole indicators of merit. Obstetrics and gynecology, a key secondary discipline within the NSFC’s Medical Science Department, includes maternal-fetal medicine, reproductive health, perinatal care, gynecological oncology, and related basic science domains (Yu et al., 2014 ; Zhou, 2022 ). With evolving public health priorities, such as the implementation of fertility policy reforms, prevention of birth defects, and development of assisted reproductive technologies, the demand for research in this field has continued to grow. These needs are closely linked to pharmaceutical practice, including the development and rational use of medications during pregnancy, hormone therapy, and innovations in reproductive pharmacology. Moreover, the integration of basic and clinical research has become essential to advancing evidence-based therapies and improving patient outcomes (Denney & Quinn, 2018 ; Zhang et al., 2025 ). However, persistent challenges remain, including regional disparities in research capacity, insufficient continuity in research efforts, and a limited pipeline for high-level research talent. Despite ongoing support for projects in obstetrics and gynecology, systematic evaluations of NSFC funding patterns remain limited (Zhai et al., 2024 ). Existing studies have primarily focused on fields such as traditional Chinese medicine, dentistry, and orthopedics, with minimal attention given to this discipline’s funding structure, geographic and institutional distribution, shifting research priorities, and the relationship between funding and scientific output. In particular, the extent to which NSFC supports high-impact pharmacological or therapeutic research, especially that leading to changes in clinical guidelines or health policy, remains unclear. In recent years, NSFC-funded research in obstetrics and gynecology has increasingly intersected with pharmaceutical innovation, including studies on prenatal diagnostics, maternal-fetal pharmacology, endocrine therapies, and assisted reproductive technologies. These research areas are critical to shaping pharmaceutical policy and practice, particularly regarding medication safety in pregnancy, rational drug use, and the development of targeted interventions. Thus, examining NSFC funding patterns in this field can provide valuable insights into how public investment influences pharmaceutical innovation and guides health systems and policy in reproductive care. This study was conducted to address these gaps by analyzing publicly available data from the NSFC and major international publication databases. A comprehensive statistical analysis was performed to assess the number of projects, total funding, institutional distribution, research hotspots, and publication outputs in obstetrics and gynecology between 2011 and 2020. Furthermore, the alignment between NSFC funding and research productivity was evaluated. These findings aim to support data-informed pharmaceutical policy development and provide practical guidance for researchers to optimise proposal strategies, improve application success rates, and ultimately enhance medication-related health outcomes for women.

Between 2011 and 2020, NSFC funding for obstetrics and gynecology showed a clear upward trajectory. The number of projects rose from 155 to 271, with an average annual growth rate of 6.2%, while total funding increased from 65.09 million to 109.93 million RMB, a 69% rise over the decade. This sustained growth highlights national recognition of reproductive health as a strategic research domain and its increasing relevance to pharmaceutical innovation and evidence-based care delivery. Drivers of this expansion include the growing clinical burden of maternal and gynecological conditions such as hypertensive disorders of pregnancy, diabetic nephropathy, and endometriosis, which require focused pharmacological and therapeutic solutions (Facchinetti et al., 2015 ; Pleasant, 2024 ; Zhu et al., 2022 ). Policy shifts, such as the ‘universal two-child policy’ introduced in 2015, further prioritised reproductive medicine (Li & Di, 2021 ; Tong & Zheng, 2024 ), and the 14th Five-Year Plan has designated reproductive health and birth-defect prevention as national priorities ( N. N. S. F. o. China ). Funding expansion also enabled more structured discipline development. The Young Scientists Fund accounted for 1,025 projects (45.8%), nurturing early-career researchers and helping sustain academic productivity. General Programs, comprising 54.76% of total funding, supported essential studies, including those focused on placental angiogenesis and drug responses in pregnancy. Though high-level programmes comprised just 2.1% of total projects, their strategic focus, including maternal-fetal immune tolerance and prenatal diagnostics, catalysed pharmacological discovery in targeted domains (Fan et al., 2006 ; Nelson & Myatt, 2020 ). This pyramidal funding structure reflects an investment approach that combines broad foundational support with selective deep investments into areas with strong translational and policy relevance in reproductive pharmacotherapy. The NSFC project type distribution highlights systemic gaps in talent progression. While the Young Scientists Fund represented 45.8% of all projects, the proportion of high-level talent programmes, such as Key Programs, Major Projects, and Distinguished Young Scholars, was only 2.1% (Zhu et al., 2022 ). This ‘broad base, narrow apex’ model indicates a bottleneck in advancing early-career researchers toward leadership roles. For example, only eight Excellent Young Scientists and five Distinguished Young Scholars were funded over the decade, and these awards were disproportionately concentrated in leading institutions like Fudan and Peking University. Such concentration risks limiting innovation in reproductive pharmacology to elite institutions, while undermining efforts to diversify the scientific workforce. Additionally, the short duration and limited scale of many entry-level projects reduce opportunities for longitudinal research and clinical translation. The limited support for interdisciplinary, team-based research has restricted capacity to tackle complex pharmaceutical challenges, including drug safety during pregnancy and integration of pharmacogenomic insights into reproductive care (Yang, 2016 ). NSFC funding distribution was heavily skewed toward Eastern China. Of the top 10 funded institutions, eight were located in Beijing, Shanghai, and Guangdong, collectively receiving 41.2% of projects and 48.7% of funding. In contrast, only two Central-Western institutions, Chongqing Medical University and Sichuan University, were represented. This geographic imbalance mirrors broader structural disparities in China’s health research ecosystem, affecting both access to research resources and the ability to conduct pharmaceutical policy-relevant studies. Eastern institutions benefited from better research infrastructure and stronger talent networks (Qin et al., 2024 ), with 85.7% of Key Programs awarded to this region. Central-Western institutions, constrained by limited facilities and high talent attrition, are underrepresented in high-impact pharmaceutical research (Rayburn, 2021 ). As a result, critical questions, such as regional variation in drug metabolism during pregnancy or ethnically tailored reproductive treatments, remain underexplored. From 2011 to 2020, the correlation between NSFC funding and high-impact research output (defined as publications with IF ≥ 5) was inconsistent. The average overlap between the top 10 institutions by project count and high-impact publication volume was 61%, ranging from 50% to 70%. Institutions such as Central South University and Zhengzhou University produced a substantial number of high-IF publications despite modest funding levels, while Shanghai Jiao Tong and Peking University maintained high performance in both. This overall reflects a partial alignment, which may be associated with several factors. Top-tier institutions in the eastern region, supported by more sophisticated research platforms and clinical resources, are more efficient in translating funding into research outcomes. In contrast, some institutions may be in the phase of building research infrastructure or accumulating long-term research experience, resulting in lower short-term efficiency in converting funding into tangible results. Additionally, research in obstetrics and gynecology often takes a longer time to progress from funding to publishing high-impact papers, and such time lags make it difficult to achieve complete synchronisation of data within the same year. Moreover, in recent years, the NSFC has placed greater emphasis on original exploration, and some institutions have prioritised long-term research projects, which may lead to fewer short-term publications. For example, the field of oncology, with its relatively shorter research cycle and faster translation speed, may have a higher alignment between funding and high-impact output, which is in stark contrast to the characteristics of the field of obstetrics and gynecology (Tingting Qu, 2021 ). These discrepancies reflect the NSFC’s evolving evaluation strategy, which now emphasises research originality, clinical relevance, and translational potential over publication metrics alone (Fest & McCue, 2024 ). For example, Sun Yat-sen University ranked only tenth in funding but led in high-IF publications, suggesting strong interdisciplinary or translational capacities. Conversely, institutions with large grant portfolios but relatively fewer high-impact papers may be emphasising long-term exploratory work or infrastructure development. This trend supports the NSFC’s principle of ‘not solely prioritizing publications’ and highlights the importance of embedding translational and pharmacoeconomic impact into research evaluation. Despite notable gains, China’s obstetrics and gynecology research landscape faces structural challenges. The low proportion of high-tier projects impairs breakthroughs in emerging areas such as maternal immunopharmacology and perinatal drug safety. Fragmented support and limited clinical integration hamper the translational pipeline, weakening the evidence base for policy-relevant pharmaceutical interventions. Many preclinical findings fail to yield clinical innovations, and short-term funding cycles interrupt research continuity. The absence of platform funding further exacerbates geographic inequities and talent loss. To address these gaps, a paradigm shift is needed toward building sustainable, multi-institutional research platforms. Full-chain funding strategies, including rolling support for established research teams, could better support pharmacological discovery and translation. Aligning funding with strategic national pharmaceutical policy goals, such as rational drug use in pregnancy or equitable access to assisted reproductive technologies, will also enhance impact. Several policy measures are proposed to align NSFC funding with national pharmaceutical policy and practice goals: 1) refine funding codes and review criteria to better support interdisciplinary projects in reproductive pharmacology, pharmacogenomics, and maternal-fetal therapeutics (Xu et al., 2014 ). Customised review panels can reduce barriers for cross-cutting proposals; 2) strengthen talent progression mechanisms, formalising a ‘Young-General-Key’ pipeline with rolling support to encourage long-term innovation. A dedicated innovation fund could incentivize high-risk, high-impact pharmacological studies; 3) address regional disparities by establishing a ‘Regional Priority Fund’ for studies on local drug safety challenges, such as high-altitude pregnancy or minority-specific metabolic conditions. Adjust evaluation criteria to emphasise regional public health relevance and pharmaceutical needs; 4) promote collaborative platforms between Eastern and Western institutions to support multi-centre drug outcomes research and translational capacity-building; and 5) implement structured project management systems at host institutions. Drawing on models like the Maternal-Fetal Medicine Innovation Center, such frameworks can integrate discovery, validation, and policy translation. Evaluation systems should include output metrics such as real-world evidence generation, pharmacoeconomic impact, and contributions to clinical guidelines. This study has several limitations. First, the analysis was based on publicly available NSFC and publication databases, which may include inconsistencies in institutional naming or reporting delays. Second, project classification relied on administrative categories and bibliometric indicators, which may not fully capture innovation quality or translational value. Third, funding data from other agencies were not included, limiting the scope of national-level assessment. Lastly, broader research impacts – such as clinical guideline development, drug approvals, or policy uptake – were not systematically captured. Future studies should incorporate qualitative assessments and real-world outcomes to provide a more comprehensive picture of funding impact on pharmaceutical policy and practice.

Between 2011 and 2020, NSFC funding for obstetrics and gynecology demonstrated steady growth but remained predominantly focused on entry-level and basic research programmes. High-tier funding and support for translational research remained limited. Funding distribution was heavily concentrated in eastern China, and only a moderate correlation was observed between funding levels and high-impact scientific output. To address these structural gaps, a transition from short-term, project-based funding to sustained, outcome-oriented strategies is essential. This includes refining discipline classifications to better capture interdisciplinary and pharmaceutical research, enhancing progression pathways for early-career investigators, promoting geographic equity in resource allocation, and establishing integrated translational research platforms. These reforms will enhance the field’s contribution to pharmaceutical policy, strengthen the rational use of medicines in maternal and reproductive health, and improve long-term research impact on clinical and public health outcomes.