Prioritizing Strategic Fields for International Collaborative Research In Healthcare: A Focus on Korea-UK Partnership

2.1. Definition and Scope of International Collaborative Research

The scope and nature of international collaborative research vary significantly depending on the specific objectives, project types, and characteristics of each initiative. Generally, international collaborative research involves joint efforts by governments, institutions, organizations, or individuals from different countries who contribute scientific and technological resources, such as R&D funding, research facilities, and researchers, to achieve shared research goals.

Several previous studies have explored methodologies for identifying priority areas and selecting partners for international collaborative R&D. Oxley and Sampson (2004) demonstrated that concerns about potential knowledge leakage could limit the scope of collaborative research [11]. Fatehi and Choi (2009) identified critical factors for international R&D collaboration, including technology acquisition, global business expansion, and cost reduction [12]. Lee (2022) proposed a methodology for deriving priority fields in international collaborative R&D by analyzing technological levels, gaps, and policy alignment [13]. Additionally, Kim (2023) emphasized the importance of international collaboration in the defense sector and proposed ten key technologies, including artificial intelligence, quantum technology, and space exploration [14].

In another study, Jeon (2017) proposed a framework for identifying priority areas by considering national policies, technological levels, and R&D expenditure as a percentage of GDP [15]. Samuel (2024) argued that international collaborative research should focus on addressing global issues and fostering knowledge transfer, social equity, and sustainable development through policy-driven collaboration [16].

Recent studies have highlighted the significant role of international collaboration in enhancing research quality and impact. Okamura (2023) analyzed the evolution of global scientific collaboration over the past five decades, noting the formation of strong bilateral partnerships [17]. Similarly, Thelwall et al. (2024) found that international co-authorship, particularly between countries like Korea and the UK, is associated with higher quality research outputs [18].As Korea’s national strategy prioritizes technological innovation and seeks alignment with international investment priorities in digital health, this study focuses on technological competitiveness to ensure contextual relevance to Korea-UK collaboration [9]. In summary, the above can be represented as shown in Table 1.

2.2. Evaluation of Healthcare Industry Technological Levels

This study utilizes data from the “2022 Healthcare Industry Technology Level Evaluation” [19] conducted by the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI). The evaluation aims to diagnose Korea’s technological standing in healthcare by comparing it with other major countries and identifying potential areas for improvement. The most recent evaluation conducted in 2022 is summarized in Table 2.

The evaluation standardized the technological levels and gaps by setting the highest technological level at 100% and the smallest gap at 0 years. The range of responses for technological levels was set between 0% and 100%, while the technological gap ranged from 0 to 50 years. The study covered 42 disease-related technologies and 35 industrial technologies. The evaluation also included a survey to identify key factors necessary for enhancing Korea’s technological levels, allowing respondents to rank the top three factors.

2.3. Korea-UK International Healthcare Collaboration

Korea and the United Kingdom have maintained a long-standing partnership in the healthcare sector since the signing of the Korea-UK Joint Committee on Science and Technology Cooperation in 2010. Following this agreement, collaborative research on Alzheimer’s disease was initiated in 2011, focusing on researcher exchange and joint studies. In 2014, a memorandum of understanding (MOU) was signed between the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI) and the UK’s Medical Research Council (MRC), strengthening bilateral healthcare cooperation [10].

Since 2016, the KHIDI-MRC Partnering Award program has been supporting joint research projects and facilitating networking between researchers from both countries. This initiative paved the way for further collaboration, including the Korea-UK Joint Dementia Research Project launched in 2019, which aimed to support early diagnosis and treatment of dementia [9].

In addition to MRC, KHIDI has been collaborating with the UK’s National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) since 2023. As part of this collaboration, a Korea-UK Smart Clinical Trials Joint Symposium was held in 2024, and a joint research initiative on smart clinical trials is scheduled to begin in 2025. This initiative will adopt a matching fund model, with both countries contributing equally to support research projects, thereby promoting advanced clinical trials using innovative technologies [20].

Given the strong history of collaboration and the planned expansion of joint initiatives, further research is needed to enhance the effectiveness of Korea-UK healthcare partnerships.

4.1. Classification of Healthcare Technologies

The classification of healthcare technologies used in this study is based on the “2022 Healthcare Industry Technology Level Evaluation” conducted by the Korea Health Industry Development Institute (KHIDI) [19]. The study categorizes technologies into eight categories, encompassing 35 specific technologies within the healthcare and biomedical sectors. These classifications serve as the foundation for identifying priority areas for international collaboration. (See Table 3 for details)

4.2. Technological Competitiveness Analysis

This study utilized data from the “2022 Healthcare Industry Technology Level Evaluation” to extract standardized scores for relative technological levels and technological gaps across various fields. The results, normalized by mean and standard deviation, are presented in Table 4. Standardization allows for an objective comparison of whether a specific technology field's level or gap is above or below the overall average (0) [19].

(Fig. 2) visualizes the relative technological levels and gaps for each technology field. Two approaches were used to identify fields with lower technological competitiveness:

Method 1: Technologies with a standardized technological level below 0 or a technological gap above 0 were classified as having lower competitiveness.

Method 2: Recognizing the high correlation between technological levels and gaps (Pearson correlation coefficient: -0.676), principal component analysis (PCA) was employed to reduce the two-dimensional data into a single dimension (PC1). PC1 accounted for 83.1% of the total variance, and was most strongly loaded on relative technical level (+0.707) and relative technical gap (-0.708). PC1 represents a composite indicator of technological competitiveness derived from technological levels and gaps. Technologies with PC1 values below 0 were classified as lower competitiveness under Method 2.

(Fig. 2) visualizes the standardized scores of Relative Technical Gap (x-axis) and Relative Technical Level (y-axis) across 35 healthcare technologies. Technologies in the upper right quadrant exhibit both lower technical performance and larger development gaps compared to global benchmarks, indicating priority areas where international collaboration is critically needed to strengthen Korea’s healthcare R&D competitiveness.

4.3. International Collaboration Need Analysis

The need for international collaboration was assessed based on survey data from the “2022 Healthcare Industry Technology Level Evaluation. [19]” Respondents ranked the factors necessary for improving Korea’s technological levels, including government research funding, expert training and recruitment, and international collaboration. Among the 12 factors surveyed, the study focused on the responses identifying “international collaboration” as a critical factor. The analysis used two approaches: 1. Technologies within the top 25% of responses were classified as requiring international collaboration. 2. Technologies with response rates above one standard deviation from the mean were also classified as requiring collaboration. The results are summarized in Table 5.

4.4. Analysis of Policy Alignment with the UK

Policy alignment with the UK was assessed by analyzing the strategic investment priorities outlined in reports from the Medical Research Council (MRC) and the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). Using expert evaluations, the study determined whether the 35 technologies aligned with the policies of these institutions. The alignment results are presented in Table 6.

The Medical Research Council (MRC), as outlined in its Strategic Delivery Plan 2022 to 2025 [21], accelerates human health and economic prosperity through biomedical research, aligning with the UK government’s Life Sciences Vision. The MRC prioritizes investment in cutting-edge technologies and innovations, particularly in stem cell research, gene therapy, regenerative medicine, digital health, and artificial intelligence (AI)-driven diagnostic and therapeutic technologies. By translating research outcomes into clinical and policy applications, the MRC fosters real-world impact. Moreover, the organization emphasizes data-intensive research and interdisciplinary approaches, strengthening global collaborations to address critical challenges such as infectious diseases and environmental change. These strategic directions underscore the alignment of technologies like stem cell and gene therapy, as well as digital health, with the UK’s national policy priorities.

The National Institute for Health and care Research (NIHR), as detailed in its Annual Report 2023/24 [22], focuses on advancing health and social care through innovative research aligned with the UK’s Health Mission. The NIHR emphasizes developing cutting-edge solutions such as AI-powered diagnostic tools, digital health innovations, and precision medicine. By fostering collaboration with the NHS, researchers, and public health organizations, NIHR ensures the integration of research outcomes into practical healthcare improvements. Furthermore, the institute prioritizes health equity, supporting studies that address disparities in care delivery and outcomes across diverse populations. This strategic alignment highlights the relevance of technologies such as digital therapeutics, biomarker discovery, and AI-based systems to the UK’s policy goals for improving healthcare accessibility and efficiency. Although this study analyzed UK policy documents in depth, direct validation from UK-based stakeholders or domain experts was not conducted. This limitation is acknowledged, and future studies will incorporate cross-verification through bilateral consultation to enhance reliability and contextual relevance.

4.5. Comprehensive Analysis Results

By integrating the three dimensions—technological competitiveness, international collaboration needs, and policy alignment—priority areas for Korea-UK healthcare R&D collaboration were identified. Each dimension was evaluated using the methods outlined above, and the total score for each technology was calculated. Technologies scoring 5 or above were classified as priority areas. The results identified two key technologies for priority collaboration Table 7, as visually represented in Fig. (3).

Out of 35 technologies evaluated, two fields-xenotransplantation and standardization of medical data - scored ≥5 across all three criteria. While this may seem limited, Table 7 also lists technologies that ranked highly in one or two dimensions but did not meet the composite threshold. This scoring system ensures that selected technologies reflect the most strategic convergence of Korea’s technological needs and the UK’s policy agenda.

Xenotransplantation (D2): With a total score of 5, this field demonstrated high competitiveness (2 points), significant collaboration need (2 points), and strong policy alignment with MRC (1 point). Xenotransplantation addresses critical organ shortages and represents a transformative innovation in regenerative medicine.

Standardization of Medical Data (G2): Also scoring 5, this field is essential for improving interoperability in medical data systems, enabling advancements in digital health and AI-driven diagnostics. The technology aligns strongly with the policies of both MRC and NIHR.

The analysis identified two technologies— xenotransplantation and standardization of medical data—as the highest priority areas for Korea-UK healthcare collaboration. These fields align with Korea’s needs for technological enhancement, the UK’s policy priorities, and the overarching goal of addressing global health challenges through collaborative efforts.

(Fig. 3) visualizes the final prioritization of healthcare technologies based on three evaluation dimensions: technological competitiveness (PC1, x-axis), international collaboration need (y-axis), and policy alignment (color coding). Red markers indicate technologies with strong alignment to the UK strategy. Technologies in the upper-left quadrant with red and grey coloring represent the most strategic candidates for bilateral research, demonstrating combined weaknesses in competitiveness and high alignment with collaborative and policy goals.