Catherine A. Lichten

Does a biomedical research centre affect patient care in local hospitals

BackgroundBiomedical research can have impacts on patient care at research-active hospitals. We qualitatively evaluated the impact of the Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (Oxford BRC), a university-hospital partnership, on the effectiveness and efficiency of healthcare in local hospitals. Effectiveness and efficiency are conceptualised in terms of impacts perceived by clinicians on the quality, quantity and costs of patient care they deliver.MethodsFirst, we reviewed documentation from Oxford BRC and literature on the impact of research activity on patient care. Second, we interviewed leaders of the Oxford BRC’s research to identify the direct and indirect impacts they expected their activity would have on local hospitals. Third, this information was used to inform interviews with senior clinicians responsible for patient care at Oxford’s acute hospitals to discover what impacts they observed from research generally and from Oxford BRC’s research work specifically. We compared and contrasted the results from the two sets of interviews using a qualitative approach. Finally, we identified themes emerging from the senior clinicians’ responses, and compared them with an existing taxonomy of mechanisms through which quality of healthcare may be affected in research-active settings.ResultsWe were able to interview 17 research leaders at the Oxford BRC and 19 senior clinicians at Oxford’s acute hospitals. The research leaders identified a wide range of beneficial impacts that they expected might be felt at local hospitals as a result of their research activity. They expected the impact of their research activity on patient care to be generally positive. The senior clinicians responsible for patient care at those hospitals presented a more mixed picture, identifying many positive impacts, but also a smaller number of negative impacts, from research activity, including that of the Oxford BRC. We found the existing taxonomy of benefit types to be helpful in organising the findings, and propose modifications to further improve its usefulness.ConclusionsImpacts from research activity on the effectiveness and efficiency of patient care at the local acute hospitals, as perceived by senior clinicians, were more often beneficial than harmful. The Oxford BRC contributed to those impacts.

Mapping the global mental health research funding system

This study maps the global funding of mental health research between 2009 and 2014. It builds from the bottom up a picture of who the major funders are, what kinds of research they support and how their strategies relate to one another. It uses the funding acknowledgements on journal papers as a starting point for this. The study also looks to the future, considering some of the areas of focus, challenges and opportunities which may shape the field in the coming few years.

100 Metrics to Assess and Communicate the Value of Biomedical Research: An Ideas Book

Biomedical research affects society in many ways. It has been shown to improve health, create jobs, add to our knowledge, and foster new collaborations. Despite the complexity of modern research, many of the metrics used to evaluate the impacts of research still focus on the traditional, often academic, part of the research pathway, covering areas such as the amount of grant funding received and the number of peer-reviewed publications. In response to increasing expectations of accountability and transparency, the Association of American Medical Colleges (AAMC), in collaboration with RAND Europe, undertook a project to help communicate the wider value of biomedical research. The initiative developed resources to support academic medical centers in evaluating the outcomes and impacts of their research using approaches relevant to various stakeholders, including patients, providers, administrators, and legislators. This study presents 100 ideas for metrics that can be used to assess and communicate the value of biomedical research. The list is not comprehensive, and the metrics are not fully developed, but they should serve to stimulate and broaden thinking about how academic medical centers can communicate the value of their research to a broad range of stakeholders.

Transforming Urgent and Emergency Care and the Vanguard Initiative: Learning from Evaluation of the Southern Cluster

Urgent and Emergency Care (UEC) vanguards aim to improve the quality, efficiency and effectiveness of UEC services so that patients receive the most appropriate care at the right time and in the right place, and so that unnecessary admissions to accident and emergency (A&E) and hospitals are reduced. The Southern Cluster comprises three such UEC vanguards. RAND Europes evaluation examined the impacts of the vanguards, the processes underpinning delivery (and associated enablers and challenges), and implications for future policy and practice. The evaluation used a multi-method approach, including theories of change, document review, workshops, interviews, surveys and data dashboards. The Southern Cluster UEC vanguards have made progress across core activities. Clinical hubs are operational across the sites. Direct booking capacity into primary care is progressing more with out-of-hours than with in-hours services. Gradual but variable progress has been made towards joint planning and governance of UEC services. Efforts to ensure seamless data sharing between providers, and interoperable IT infrastructure are progressing somewhat slower than originally hoped. Vanguard funding, committed leadership and practical mechanisms to support joint working helped drive progress. Public engagement, workforce-capacity and data interoperability will need to be addressed for longer-term impact at scale. The study makes recommendations concerning: (i) UEC health and care workforce capacity-building, (ii) local-national coordination around UEC transformation, (iii) collaboration across localities and professions, (iv) support for an end-to-end UEC pathway with mutually reinforcing activities, (v) cost and outcome data, (vi) an interoperable data infrastructure, and (vii) capacity for evaluation and learning.

Open science: The citizen's role in and contribution to research

O pen science can be thought of as a movement or an evolution in the research process. It relates to how scientists interact with one another and how the public engages with and is engaged in science. It also relates to societal expectations about the imperative to share results – particularly those obtained through publicly funded research. In practical terms, open science can be seen as a systemic change in the way research is conducted, affecting steps throughout the research process, from idea generation, planning and design, through to the outputs and impacts of research further along in the process. Linking these changes towards openness is a shift in our understanding of the role of science in society that, some have argued, is bringing back values that have been overshadowed in modern science, such as a spirit of exploration (Lichten et al. 2014) and an appreciation for sharing knowledge (Könneker & Lugger 2013). Digital technology has enabled radical changes in how we

Most mobility to and from the UK is within a small set of western countries

Amongst those receiving their highest degree overseas, most did so in EU countries or the US; the most common countries were the US, Germany, Spain and France Regardless of duration, the USA, Germany and France are the most common destinations for researchers from the UK. Australia, Canada and Japan are also important destinations of non-UK nationals in the UK have EU or North American nationalities 80%

International mobility of researchers: Supplementary report: Perspectives from industry

A significant proportion of the UKs research workforce is based in the private sector, but there is little evidence available, through existing data sets or in the literature, on the mobility of researchers in industry. This study aims to develop a better understanding of the mobility of researchers in UK industry, and how research-intensive companies are preparing for the UKs forthcoming departure from the EU.

Experiences of mobility differ between groups

A key driver of mobility for postdocs is career progression, and personal circumstances are generally considered to be less of a barrier for this group than for more senior researchers Graduates from elsewhere in the EU are even more likely than UK nationals to move overseas after graduation, and there is also the indication that international postdoctoral mobility is becoming more common The postdoctoral period is important for mobility yet receives less focus in literature than PhDs

A global map of mental health research funding

Introduction Mental illness has a major impact on individuals, healthcare systems and society. Research is needed to improve our understanding of the underlying mechanisms of many mental health conditions and to develop effective treatments. However, the field of mental health research is broad and fragmented. It covers a diversity of health conditions and contains a large and varied population of researchers and funding organisations. These characteristics are a significant challenge to coordinating and conducting research. There has never been, to the best of our knowledge, a comprehensive view of the entire mental health research funding ‘ecosystem’ at a global scale. This study provides a snapshot of the mental health research funding ecosystem, showing who the major funders are, what kinds of research they support and how their strategies relate to one another.

How policy can help develop and sustain workforce capacity in UK dementia research: insights from a career tracking analysis and stakeholder interviews

Objectives To identify research support strategies likely to be effective for strengthening the UKs dementia research landscape and ensuring a sustainable and competitive workforce. Design Interviews and qualitative analysis; systematic internet search to track the careers of 1500 holders of UK doctoral degrees in dementia, awarded during 1970–2013, to examine retention in this research field and provide a proxy profile of the research workforce. Setting and participants 40 interviewees based in the UK, whose primary role is or has been in dementia research (34 individuals), health or social care (3) or research funding (3). Interviewees represented diverse fields, career stages and sectors. Results While the UK has diverse strengths in dementia research, needs persist for multidisciplinary collaboration, investment in care-related research, supporting research-active clinicians and translation of research findings. There is also a need to better support junior and midlevel career opportunities to ensure a sustainable research pipeline and future leadership. From a sample of 1500 UK doctorate holders who completed a dementia-related thesis in 1970–2013, we identified current positions for 829 (55%). 651 (43% of 1500) could be traced and identified as still active in research (any field) and 315 (21%) as active in dementia research. Among recent doctoral graduates, nearly 70% left dementia research within 4–6 years of graduation. Conclusions A dementia research workforce blueprint should consider support for individuals, institutions and networks. A mix of policy interventions are needed, aiming to attract and retain researchers; tackle bottlenecks in career pathways, particularly at early and midcareer stages (eg, scaling-up fellowship opportunities, rising star programmes, bridge-funding, flexible clinical fellowships, leadership training); and encourage research networks (eg, doctoral training centres, succession and sustainability planning). Interventions should also address the need for coordinated investment to improve multidisciplinary collaboration; balanced research portfolios across prevention, treatment and care; and learning from evaluation.