Remember to login before you can view the full description of a study, submit a study, or post topics to the discussion forum.
Added: February 7, 2022
Updated: February 7, 2022
Insights from studies on how research contributes to wider benefits for society (i.e. ‘impacts’) can and should inform the operations of research funding organisations. Yet there would appear to be a gap in funding managers’ knowledge of these real-world processes, and confusion over appropriate roles when it comes to supporting activities that can help research along a pathway to impact.
The UK's National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) has set out a broad programme of work to understand, learn and improve its operations with respect to impact, as part of a 5-year ‘Impact Vision’. One of these activities focusses on how NIHR can best incorporate knowledge from studies of research impact into the guidance it provides to researchers who are applying for NIHR funding, when they are in the process of designing their research plans.
Over the past 2 years, NIHR has trialled a new initiative - impact 'strengthening workshops’ - that distils down key concepts and information derived from studies of research impact, into simple exercises to support researchers’ planning. This study evaluates applicants’ views on how useful they find these exercises and NIHR’s guidance on impact, more broadly. Findings will directly inform NIHR’s development of impact ‘practice guides’ for applicants and members of the funding committees who review NIHR funding applications. The study will also provide insights on how funders can incorporate evidence from studies of science into application processes, in a way that is amenable to researchers.
Added: February 7, 2022
Updated: February 7, 2022
Insights from studies on how research contributes to wider benefits for society (i.e. ‘impacts’) can and should inform the operations of research funding organisations. Yet there would appear to be a gap in funding managers’ knowledge of these real-world processes, and confusion over appropriate roles when it comes to supporting activities that can help research along a pathway to impact.
The UK's National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) has set out a broad programme of work to understand, learn and improve its operations with respect to impact, as part of a 5-year ‘Impact Vision’. One of these activities is a unique impact training programme, designed to incorporate expert knowledge from studies of science in a way that supports NIHR’s staff to consider how impact relates to their roles.
The impact training programme has been running for the last 4 years and it is timely to conduct an evaluation to see if and how NIHR staff knowledge has improved, and their intentions to apply learning in practice. This information will help NIHR to improve the content and structure of the programme and also inform wider activities, such as how NIHR can develop consistent guidance and information on impact across its operations. The findings from this study will offer valuable insights to the wider research community, based on the unique training programme and how it affects the operations of a national public research funding organisation.
Added: October 28, 2021
Updated: October 28, 2021
Research institutes represent a large part of the Medical Research Council (MRC) annual investment in research, which amounts to 21% of its portfolio, representing £145 Millions. Thus, on the one hand, understanding the contribution of research institutes to the MRC objectives in terms of research excellence and impact is of prime importance. On the other hand, research evaluation exercises, such as the Quinquennial Reviews that the research institutes are subjected to take significant time and resources. Thus, institute assessments should provide the best way to both ensure accountability of the institutes while limiting as much as possible the administrative burden on them.
This project aims to review the evaluation process that MRC research institutes undergo to identify the evidence crucial to the decision making and accountability purposes defined by the sponsor, including the tracking of benefits, as well as to inform future science policy. To do so the project entails two strands of research.
A first strand consists of reviewing what evidence has been submitted in the research institutes past evaluation exercises through document analysis. This will characterise the evidence submitted across a number of themes (i.e. excellence, building capacity, collaboration, translation, diversity etc.), but also what type of evidence is submitted, whether these are general narratives about what has been achieved, case studies or quantitative evidence. In order to assess the usefulness of this evidence, we will also consult with stakeholders (expert panellists, executive team of the research council, etc.).
A second strand consists of exploring how bibliometric data can be leveraged to provide systematic and easily compiled evidence to evaluation exercises, to best help evidence a range of strategic benefits of research performed at institutes, such as collaborations, translational work, disciplinary focus etc.
Overall the project aims to i) provide a framework for tracking research institute benefits that takes into account that the performance of these research organisations will reflect a variety of objectives and missions, and ii) explore how evaluation can produce the best evidence while limiting the administrative burden of compiling this evidence.
Added: October 14, 2021
Updated: February 9, 2022
Core outcome sets have the potential to reduce research waste by improving the consistency of outcomes measured in trials of the same health condition. An online resource called COMET initiative https://www.comet-initiative.org/ brings together people interested in the development and application of agreed standardised sets of outcomes, known as ‘core outcome sets’ (COS). This resource also has a searchable database of all developing or published COS.
However, this reduction in waste will only be realised through the uptake of COS by clinical trialists. Without uptake, the continued development of COS that are not implemented may add to waste in research. Funders of clinical trials have the potential to have an impact on COS uptake by recommending their use to those applying for funding. It is unclear to what extent grant applicants seeking funding for clinical trials include reference to the inclusion of a Core Outcome Set, or provide rationale for their outcome selection in Ireland. A similar study was carried out in the UK in 2019 (Hughes et al. 2019), which indicated a sub-optimal consideration for COS when submitting grant applications to the funder. Reviewing the inclusion (or consideration) of COS by trial teams at the grant application stage will help identify the extent to which more work is needed to encourage the uptake of COS resources by the funder, and also by the HRB Trials Methodology Research in Ireland.
Added: September 29, 2021
Updated: September 29, 2021
Background: Academic sabbaticals are seen as an important aspect of academic life and require considerable resources; however, little research has been done into how they are used and whether their effects can be measured. We explored these issues at the University of Cambridge.
Methods: A mixed method approach including 24 interviews with academics, 8 interviews with administrators; alongside analysis of administrative and publication data between 2010 and 2019.
Results: Academics underline the importance of sabbaticals in providing uninterrupted time for research that is used to think, explore new ideas, master new techniques, develop new collaborations, draw together previous work, set work in a wider context, and provide personal discretion in research direction. They also highlight sabbaticals’ contributions in allowing the beneficial effects of combining teaching and research while mitigating some of the disadvantages. However, it is difficult to detect the effect of sabbaticals on publications using a time series approach.
Conclusions: Sabbaticals provide manifold contributions to academic research at the University of Cambridge; however, detecting and quantifying this contribution, and extending these findings requires wider and more detailed investigation.
Added: September 17, 2021
Updated: September 17, 2021
In 2015, the updated Medical Research Council (MRC) guidance emphasised the importance of conducting qualitative studies alongside RCTs and provided guidance to help researchers undertake this work. The MRC guidance along with methodological innovations such as the QuinteT Recruitment intervention, which uses mixed methods approaches to develop strategies for optimising recruitment to RCTs have highlighted the value of conducting qualitative research alongside trials.
There is now a large body of qualitative evidence which reports on the acceptability of individual interventions and/or the common barriers and facilitators to designing and delivering RCTs. These studies provide valuable, in-depth insights surrounding the reasons why trials may or may not be ‘successful’ both in terms of an intervention’s delivery, implementation and acceptability and the design and conduct of the trial itself. However, qualitative findings are often published separately to the results of the main trial as standalone chapters within funder reports and/or as separate journal articles. As a result, the extent that the qualitative evidence that is generated during a trial is used to aid the interpretation of trial findings and/or a trial’s design and delivery is uncertain.
In this study we will map and describe how qualitative research is being used alongside currently funded National Institute for Health Research RCTs. We will include any RCT that was published during 2021 in the Health Technology Assessment (HTA), Programme Grants for Applied Research (PGfAR) and Public Health Research (PHR) journals library as these are the main funders of health-related RCTs in the UK. We will use the advanced search page on the NIHR Journals library to identify relevant reports. Any RCT, published in 2021 in the HTA, PGfAR and PHR journals library will be eligible for inclusion so long as it includes a qualitative study (e.g. qualitative sub-studies, qualitative process evaluations, qualitative components of mixed methods process evaluations) that uses established methods of qualitative data collection (e.g. interviews) and analysis (e.g. thematic analysis). Two researchers will independently assess the reports in the database and undertake data extraction. Key information to be extracted may include: RCT study characteristics (aims, design, patient characteristics); qualitative study characteristics (aims, method of data collection and analysis); participant characteristics of included qualitative studies (e.g. numbers of participants, stakeholder groups included, whether underserved populations are represented); Details of how qualitative findings are reported (i.e. as separate chapters or as mixed methods chapters); Details of how qualitative findings have informed the design, conduct, or interpretation of trial findings (e.g. how did qualitative findings inform the design of a future trial when conducted during feasibility trials).
At the time of registration, preliminary searches had been conducted and the study protocol was in development.
Added: August 31, 2021
Updated: August 31, 2021
Background Research is fundamental to improving quality of care. Although research traditionally has impact through implementation into routine care, there is increasing interest in whether participation in research itself drives better performance. The bulk of patient contacts are through general practice. If research participation improves outcomes, achieving those benefits through general practice could improve population health. However, the evidence that research activity improves outcomes mostly comes from secondary care. The same benefits may not occur in general practice. There is a need to use the wealth of data on research activity and general practice outcomes to provide a comprehensive analysis of the relationship between research activity and patient care.
Added: July 19, 2021
Updated: July 19, 2021
Single Sided Deafness (SSD) refers to the condition where there is normal or near-normal hearing in one ear and a severe to profound hearing impairment in the other ear.
Good hearing in both ears is important for everyday listening tasks such as understanding speech in noisy environments, locating where sounds are, and identifying threats such as oncoming traffic.
Researchers don’t yet agree on what benefits and harms (known as ‘outcomes’) should always be assessed when evaluating whether or not an intervention for SSD is effective. These inconsistencies hinder progress to find the most effective intervention.
Added: June 30, 2021
Updated: June 30, 2021
The Research Investments in Global Health (RESIN) study is an analysis of global investments in health research, and is based at the University of Southampton.
We analyses funding decisions and look at knowledge strengths and research gaps. For example, see the 2020 paper covering $105 billion of public and charitable research investment around global infectious disease research. https://www.thelancet.com/journals/langlo/article/PIIS2214-109X(20)30357-0/fulltext
Ongoing work includes global research funding of oncology research and initial look at the impact of the pandemic on cancer funding. We are also bringing together 'all health research globally' to perform an analysis of the spend on each key area of health, over time, and to ascertain where strengths and gaps are going forward. Our data is used and absorbed by the WHO R&D Observatory, and also funding bodies including Wellcome, Gates Foundation and the NIHR.
Added: June 30, 2021
Updated: June 30, 2021
Funders of health research internationally are adopting the concept of involving the public and patients into decision making within their organisation and/or within funded research initiatives (Public and Patient Involvement, PPI). To what extent and through what mechanisms a health research funder should do this has become a pertinent business question. This project was undertaken in 2016 to provide recommendations to the Health Research Board about which potential PPI interventions to prioritise.
The project explored the main concepts around PPI and analysed the international PPI experience in three countries with well-established PPI supports (UK, USA and Canada), followed by mapping of the emerging Irish PPI landscape. This information fed into the design of a survey targeting two audiences, health researchers and members of the public/patients, exploring what the HRB should so to support PPI. A total of 391 people responded to the survey, with 242 completing it.
Survey results showed that researchers had a clear preference for the HRB to provide practical support for their PPI endeavours. Awareness raising was seen as important, which is corroborated by the observation that not all respondents appear to share the same definition of PPI, a phenomenon observed internationally. Matchmaking between researchers and PPI contributors was of medium importance, as was the option for the HRB to emphasise PPI throughout award selection and management. Training needs for researchers and for PPI contributors scored medium-low. The least favoured option was to include public reviewers into selection panels for applications.
Two thirds of responding researchers claimed to have previously employed PPI within their research. This appears high and might reflect a self-selected sample and some ambiguity regarding the definition of PPI. 89% of researchers were satisfied or very satisfied with previous PPI experiences, and virtually all (147/148) intended to integrate PPI activities into their research in the future, providing a strong foundation for PPI interventions.
Main messages from the public/patient survey included a mismatch between research carried out and research seen as important by respondents. This has been documented internationally and provides a challenge for funders. Respondents indicated interest in activities linked to individual projects such as proofreading patient materials and inputting into the design of the research protocol. Half of the respondents considered working with a research funder to review the PPI aspect of applications, indicating that this would be a feasible option for the HRB. There was a high willingness to be involved in research in the future, and a mostly positive reflection on previous PPI experience, although not as positive as the researchers’ assessment.
The main recommendation arising for the HRB is to set out a 4-year plan with two parts: planned funding initiatives to implement the recommendations, and a planned gradual change in ways of working to strengthen the PPI aspect in applications and award management.