Explore the vast range of titles available.

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. However, the evidence supporting the use and acceptability of preprints varies across funders, publishers, and researchers. The scoping review explored the current evidence on the use and acceptability of preprints in health and social care settings by publishers, funders, and the research community throughout the research lifecycle. A scoping review was undertaken with no study or language limits. The search strategy was limited to the last five years (2017-2022) to capture changes influenced by COVID-19 (e.g., accelerated use and role of preprints in research). The review included international literature, including grey literature, and two databases were searched: Scopus and Web of Science (24 August 2022). 379 titles and abstracts and 193 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Ninety-eight articles met eligibility criteria and were included for full extraction. For barriers and challenges, 26 statements were grouped under four main themes (e.g., volume/growth of publications, quality assurance/trustworthiness, risks associated to credibility, and validation). For benefits and value, 34 statements were grouped under six themes (e.g., openness/transparency, increased visibility/credibility, open review process, open research, democratic process/systems, increased productivity/opportunities). Preprints provide opportunities for rapid dissemination but there is a need for clear policies and guidance from journals, publishers, and funders. Cautionary measures are needed to maintain the quality and value of preprints, paying particular attention to how findings are translated to the public. More research is needed to address some of the uncertainties addressed in this review.

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. Following thematic analysis, five key themes were identified describing researcher experiences of key issues around time, efforts and burden associated with funding processes. These themes encompassed (1) issues with the current funding model for health and social care research, (2) time and effort involved in funding processes, (3) the need for a streamlined end-to-end process, (4) implications for work-life balance, and (5) addressing the need for better support and communication. The findings from this study describe researcher experiences of tasks in the research pathway that currently take considerable time and effort. It was clear that whilst some of this time and effort is considered necessary, some is exacerbated by inefficient and ineffective processes, such as perceived under-funding of research or lack of clarity with regards to funder expectations. This in turn contributes to unnecessary researcher burden, research waste and negative research culture. Better investment in health and social care research and in the researchers themselves who design and deliver the research, alongside improvements in transparency, streamlining and research support could ensure a more positive research culture, and improve the quality of funded research.

Research funding committees play an integral role in the research funding process, consisting of a range of skills, knowledge, and expertise (e.g., professional, and public contributors). Although there is some evidence that has explored the efficiency and effectiveness of funding committees in terms of the funding process, there is a lack of published evidence about the purpose, role, and function of funding committees, from the perspective of committee members. A subset of survey data from a cohort of six National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) research programmes, exploring the purpose of a funding committee, and the expectations and role of a funding committee member between October 2020 to December 2021. All committee members were eligible to participate in the survey. Using an inductive approach, 50 completed responses (22.5% response rate) were analysed, focusing on the role of a funding committee member and the functions of a funding committee. Participants highlighted seven key areas for the purpose of a funding committee: prioritising and recommending what research to fund (n=36) and assessment of quality (n=24) being the most common responses. Four areas were considered important to the expectations and role of funding committee members, with reviewing, critically appraising, and discussing applications (n=44); and being fair, objective, and unbiased (n=27) being the most common responses. The findings offer a unique insight into committee members' expectations about the role, purpose and function of a funding committee and their contribution to the funding recommendation process. There was high agreement that the purpose and role of committees and their members was to offer expert advice to make fair, impartial decisions on which research should be prioritised. Exploring the purpose, role, and function of funding committees has relevance and importance for funding organisations seeking to enhance and optimise the decision-making practice of funding committees.

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. In this review, we summarise the processes in post-award management, compare current practices, and explore the purpose of collecting information on funded research. We also identify areas where unnecessary effort is perceived and improvement is needed, using previously reported solutions to inform recommendations for funders and HEIs. Methods: We conducted a scoping review of the relevant research and grey literature. Electronic searches of databases, and manual searches of journals and funder websites, resulted in inclusion of 52 records and 11 websites. Information on HEI and funder post-award management processes was extracted, catalogued, and summarised to inform discussion. Results: Post-award management is a complex process that serves many purposes but requires considerable effort, particularly in the set up and reporting of research. Perceptions of unnecessary effort stem from inefficiencies in compliance, data management and reporting approaches, and there is evidence of needed improvement in mechanisms of administrative support, research impact assessment, monitoring, and evaluation. Solutions should focus on integrating digital systems to reduce duplication, streamlining reporting methods, and improving administrative resources in HEIs. Conclusions: Funders and HEIs should work together to support a more efficient post-award management process. The value of research information, and how it is collected and used, can be improved by aligning practices and addressing the specific issues highlighted in this review.

ObjectiveTo 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/SettingA cross-sectional online survey study with open (free-text) and closed questions (August to November 2021).ParticipantsResearchers 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.ResultsThe survey was completed by 182 researchers, of which 176 had experience with applying for/obtaining funding, and 143 had experience with fulfilling reporting requirements during the timeframe. The majority of the 176 respondents (58%) completed between 7 and 13 key processes in order to submit an application and 69% felt that it was critically important to undertake these key processes. Respondents (n=143) reported submitting an average of 17 reports as part of research monitoring to a range of organisations (eg, funders, Higher Education Institutions). However, only 33% of respondents felt it was critically important to provide the requested reporting information to the different organisations. Thematic analysis of free-text questions on application and reporting identified themes relating to process inefficiencies including streamlining and alignment of systems, lack of understanding of processes including a need for improved communication and feedback from organisations with clear explanations about what information is needed, when and why, the support required by respondents and the time, effort and impact on workload and well-being.ConclusionsThrough this study, we were able to identify funding processes that are considered by some to be effortful, but necessary, as well as those that were perceived as unnecessary, complex and repetitive, and may waste some researchers time and effort and impact on well-being. Possible solutions to increase efficiency and enhance value in these processes were identified.

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. Methods This partnership was aided by the James Lind Alliance and involved eight stages: (i) identifying a unique, relevant prioritisation area within trial methodology; (ii) establishing a steering group (iii) identifying and engaging with partners and stakeholders; (iv) formulating an initial list of uncertainties; (v) collating the uncertainties into research questions; (vi) confirming that the questions for research are a current recruitment challenge; (vii) shortlisting questions and (viii) final prioritisation through a face-to-face workshop. Results A total of 790 survey respondents yielded 1693 open-text answers to 6 questions, from which 1880 potential questions for research were identified. After merging duplicates, the number of questions was reduced to 496. Questions were combined further, and those that were submitted by fewer than 15 people and/or fewer than 6 of the 7 stakeholder groups were excluded from the next round of prioritisation resulting in 31 unique questions for research. All 31 questions were confirmed as being unanswered after checking relevant, up-to-date research evidence. The 10 highest priority questions were ranked at a face-to-face workshop. The number 1 ranked question was “How can randomised trials become part of routine care and best utilise current clinical care pathways?” The top 10 research questions can be viewed at www.priorityresearch.ie . Conclusion The prioritised questions call for a collective focus on normalising trials as part of clinical care, enhancing communication, addressing barriers, enablers and motivators around participation and exploring greater public involvement in the research process.

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. In this review, we summarise the processes in post-award management, compare current practices, and explore the purpose of collecting information on funded research. We also identify areas where unnecessary effort is perceived and improvement is needed, using previously reported solutions to inform recommendations for funders and HEIs.  Methods: We conducted a scoping review of the relevant research and grey literature. Electronic searches of databases, and manual searches of journals and funder websites, resulted in inclusion of 52 records and 11 websites. Information on HEI and funder post-award management processes was extracted, catalogued, and summarised to inform discussion.  Results: Post-award management is a complex process that serves many purposes but requires considerable effort, particularly in the set up and reporting of research. Perceptions of unnecessary effort stem from inefficiencies in compliance, data management and reporting approaches, and there is evidence of needed improvement in mechanisms of administrative support, research impact assessment, monitoring, and evaluation. Solutions should focus on integrating digital systems to reduce duplication, streamlining reporting methods, and improving administrative resources in HEIs.  Conclusions: Funders and HEIs should work together to support a more efficient post-award management process. The value of research information, and how it is collected and used, can be improved by aligning practices and addressing the specific issues highlighted in this review.

Research funding committees play an integral role in the research funding process, consisting of a range of skills, knowledge, and expertise (e.g., professional, and public contributors). Although there is some evidence that has explored the efficiency and effectiveness of funding committees in terms of the funding process, there is a lack of published evidence about the purpose, role, and function of funding committees, from the perspective of committee members. A subset of survey data from a cohort of six National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) research programmes, exploring the purpose of a funding committee, and the expectations and role of a funding committee member between October 2020 to December 2021. All committee members were eligible to participate in the survey. Using an inductive approach, 50 completed responses (22.5% response rate) were analysed, focusing on the role of a funding committee member and the functions of a funding committee. Participants highlighted seven key areas for the purpose of a funding committee: prioritising and recommending what research to fund (n=36) and assessment of quality (n=24) being the most common responses. Four areas were considered important to the expectations and role of funding committee members, with reviewing, critically appraising, and discussing applications (n=44); and being fair, objective, and unbiased (n=27) being the most common responses. The findings offer a unique insight into committee members' expectations about the role, purpose and function of a funding committee and their contribution to the funding recommendation process. There was high agreement that the purpose and role of committees and their members was to offer expert advice to make fair, impartial decisions on which research should be prioritised. Exploring the purpose, role, and function of funding committees has relevance and importance for funding organisations seeking to enhance and optimise the decision-making practice of funding committees.

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.g., biomedical and social), and was publicised on social media. The survey collected information about decision-making approaches for research funding allocation, and covered assessment criteria, current and past practices, and considerations for improvements or future practice. A mixed methods analysis provided descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages of responses) and an inductive thematic framework of key experiences. Thirty-one responses were analysed, representing government-funded organisations and charities in the health sector from the UK, Europe and Australia. Four themes were extracted and provided a narrative framework. 1. The most reported decision-making approaches were external peer review, triage, and face-to-face committee meetings; 2. Key values underpinned decision-making processes. These included transparency and gaining perspectives from reviewers with different expertise (e.g., scientific, patient and public); 3. Cross-cutting challenges of the decision-making processes faced by funders included bias, burden and external limitations; 4. Evidence of variations and innovations from the most reported decision-making approaches, including proportionate peer review, number of decision-points, virtual committee meetings and sandpits (interactive workshop). Broadly similar decision-making processes were used by all funders in this survey. Findings indicated a preference for funders to adapt current decision-making processes rather than using more innovative approaches: however, there is a need for more flexibility in decision-making and support to applicants. Funders indicated the need for information and empirical evidence on innovations which would help to inform decision-making in research fund allocation.

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. Methods A scoping of searches (and a survey with NIHR funding staff), a survey with all 52 UKCRC CTUs and 16 qualitative interviews were conducted with five stakeholder groups including trialists within CTUs, funders and research participants. A purposive sampling approach was used to conduct the qualitative interviews during March–June 2018. Qualitative data were analysed using a content analysis and inductive approach. Results Responses from 24 (46%) CTUs identified that database-screening tools were the most widely used digital tool for recruitment, with the majority being considered effective. The reason (and to whom) these tools were considered effective was in identifying potential participants (for both Site staff and CTU staff) and reaching recruitment target (for CTU staff/CI). Fewer retention tools were used, with short message service (SMS) or email reminders to participants being the most reported. The qualitative interviews revealed five themes across all groups: ‘ security and transparency ’; ‘ inclusivity and engagement ’; ‘ human interaction ’; ‘ obstacles and risks ’; and ‘ potential benefits ’. There was a high level of stakeholder acceptance of the use of digital tools to support trials, despite the lack of evidence to support them over more traditional techniques. Certain differences and similarities between stakeholder groups demonstrated the complexity and challenges of using digital tools for recruiting and retaining research participants. Conclusions Our studies identified a range of digital tools in use in recruitment and retention of RCTs, despite the lack of high-quality evidence to support their use. Understanding the type of digital tools in use to support recruitment and retention will help to inform funders and the wider research community about their value and relevance for future RCTs. Consideration of further focused digital tool reviews and primary research will help to reduce gaps in the evidence base.