Exploring virtual funding committee practices in the allocation of National Institute for Health and Care Research funding: A netnographic study.

Background: Funding committees, comprising members with a range of knowledge, skills, and experience, are considered integral to the decision-making process of funding organisations for recommending or allocating research funding. However, there is limited research investigating the decision-making processes, the role of members and their social interactions during funding committee meetings conducted both virtually and face-to-face.

Methods: Using a mixed-methods design and following netnography principles, the study observed nine National Institute for Health and Care Research programmes funding committee meetings conducted virtually during October 2020 to December 2021; complemented by interviews with committee chairs and members (18 interviews) and NIHR staff (12 interviews); an online survey (50 responses); and documentary analysis.

A scoping review on what constitutes a good research culture.

Background: The crisis in research culture is well documented, covering issues such as a tendency for quantity over quality, unhealthy competitive environments, and assessment based on publications, journal prestige and funding. In response, research institutions need to assess their own practices to promote and advocate for change in the current research ecosystem.

Aims: The purpose of the scoping review was to explore '

Methods: A scoping review was undertaken.

Online survey exploring researcher experiences of research funding processes in the UK: the effort and burden of applying for funding and fulfilling reporting requirements.

Objective: To explore researchers' experiences of funding processes, the effort and burden involved in applying for funding, obtaining funding and/or fulfilling reporting requirements with a UK health and social care research funder.

Design/setting: A cross-sectional online survey study with open (free-text) and closed questions (August to November 2021).

Participants: Researchers with experience of applying for/obtaining funding and/or experience of fulfilling reporting requirements for UK health and social care research funded between January 2018 and June 2021.

The post-award effort of managing and reporting on funded research: a scoping review.

Introduction: Reporting is a mechanism for funding organisations to monitor and manage the progress, outputs, outcomes, and impacts of the research they fund. Inconsistent approaches to reporting and post-award management, and a growing demand for research information, can lead to perception of unnecessary administrative effort that impacts on decision-making and research activity. Identifying this effort, and what stakeholders see as unmet need for improvement, is crucial if funders and Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are to streamline their practices and provide better support with reporting activities.

An in-depth exploration of researcher experiences of time and effort involved in health and social care research funding in the UK: The need for changes.

The need to reform the way in which research is undertaken is clear, with reducing research bureaucracy and waste at the forefront of this issue for the UK government, funding organisations, higher education institutions and wider research community. The aim of this study was to describe researchers' experiences of the time, effort and burden involved in funding processes-namely applying for research funding and fulfilling reporting requirements. This was an in-depth qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with researchers who had experience applying for funding and/or completing reporting requirements for a UK health and social care research funder between January 2018 and June 2021.

The use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings: A scoping review.

Background: Preprints are open and accessible scientific manuscript or report that is shared publicly, through a preprint server, before being submitted to a journal. The value and importance of preprints has grown since its contribution during the public health emergency of the COVID-19 pandemic. Funders and publishers are establishing their position on the use of preprints, in grant applications and publishing models.

What works for peer review and decision-making in research funding: a realist synthesis.

Introduction: Allocation of research funds relies on peer review to support funding decisions, and these processes can be susceptible to biases and inefficiencies. The aim of this work was to determine which past interventions to peer review and decision-making have worked to improve research funding practices, how they worked, and for whom.

Methods: Realist synthesis of peer-review publications and grey literature reporting interventions in peer review for research funding.

Identification and comparison of key criteria of feedback of funding decisions: mixed-methods analysis of funder and applicant perspectives.

Objective: This study investigated the content, quality and value of feedback given to applicants who applied to one of four research programmes in the UK funded (or jointly funded) by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).

Methods: A mixed-method phased approach was conducted using document analysis and an online survey. Phase 1 examined 114 NIHR applicant feedback documents comprised written feedback from funding committees and external peer-reviewers and a conceptual framework of the key components of feedback was developed using content analysis.

Decision-making approaches used by UK and international health funding organisations for allocating research funds: A survey of current practice.

Innovations in decision-making practice for allocation of funds in health research are emerging; however, it is not clear to what extent these are used. This study aims to better understand current decision-making practices for the allocation of research funding from the perspective of UK and international health funders. An online survey (active March-April 2019) was distributed by email to UK and international health and health-related funding organisations (e.

Using digital tools in the recruitment and retention in randomised controlled trials: survey of UK Clinical Trial Units and a qualitative study.

Background: Recruitment and retention of participants in randomised controlled trials (RCTs) is a key determinant of success but is challenging. Trialists and UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) Clinical Trials Units (CTUs) are increasingly exploring the use of digital tools to identify, recruit and retain participants. The aim of this UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) study was to identify what digital tools are currently used by CTUs and understand the performance characteristics required to be judged useful.

Role of feasibility and pilot studies in randomised controlled trials: a cross-sectional study.

Objectives: To assess the value of pilot and feasibility studies to randomised controlled trials (RCTs) funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme. To explore the methodological components of pilot/feasibility studies and how they inform full RCTs.

Study Design: Cross-sectional study.

Identifying trial recruitment uncertainties using a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership - the PRioRiTy (Prioritising Recruitment in Randomised Trials) study.

Background: Despite the problem of inadequate recruitment to randomised trials, there is little evidence to guide researchers on decisions about how people are effectively recruited to take part in trials. The PRioRiTy study aimed to identify and prioritise important unanswered trial recruitment questions for research. The PRioRiTy study - Priority Setting Partnership (PSP) included members of the public approached to take part in a randomised trial or who have represented participants on randomised trial steering committees, health professionals and research staff with experience of recruiting to randomised trials, people who have designed, conducted, analysed or reported on randomised trials and people with experience of randomised trials methodology.

National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme research funding and UK burden of disease.

Background: HTA Programme funding is governed by the need for evidence and scientific quality, reflecting funding of the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) by the NHS. The need criterion incorporates covering the spectrum of diseases, but also taking account of research supported by other funders. This study compared the NIHR HTA Programme portfolio of research with the UK burden of disease as measured by Disability-adjusted Life Years (DALYs).

The impact on healthcare, policy and practice from 36 multi-project research programmes: findings from two reviews.

Background: We sought to analyse the impacts found, and the methods used, in a series of assessments of programmes and portfolios of health research consisting of multiple projects.

Methods: We analysed a sample of 36 impact studies of multi-project research programmes, selected from a wider sample of impact studies included in two narrative systematic reviews published in 2007 and 2016. We included impact studies in which the individual projects in a programme had been assessed for wider impact, especially on policy or practice, and where findings had been described in such a way that allowed them to be collated and compared.

Models and applications for measuring the impact of health research: update of a systematic review for the Health Technology Assessment programme.

Background: This report reviews approaches and tools for measuring the impact of research programmes, building on, and extending, a 2007 review.

Objectives: (1) To identify the range of theoretical models and empirical approaches for measuring the impact of health research programmes; (2) to develop a taxonomy of models and approaches; (3) to summarise the evidence on the application and use of these models; and (4) to evaluate the different options for the Health Technology Assessment (HTA) programme.

Data Sources: We searched databases including Ovid MEDLINE, EMBASE, Cumulative Index to Nursing and Allied Health Literature and The Cochrane Library from January 2005 to August 2014.