The uneven impacts of research impact: adjustments needed to address the imbalance of the current impact framework

The current approach to measuring and assessing research impact favours certain kinds of academics and research topics over others. Kat Smith and Ellen Stewart outline three areas that require further consideration. Academics who are negatively impacted by the current framework might look to suggest adjustments which limit or ameliorate these effects

A New Politics of Knowledge? Exploring the contested boundaries between science, knowledge and policy.

Kat Smith and Richard Freeman argue it’s time to start bringing together the diverse and innovative thinking around the complex relationships between science, knowledge and policy. If we really want to understand how research does, and might, impact on policy and society more broadly, we need to combine the lessons available from sociological studies of knowledge, political science and anthropology as well as those available from more traditional studies of policy and the diffusion of new ideas

Impact monoculture – are all impact case studies the same old story?

The impact of quantitative research measures on academic behaviours have been widely discussed, but the impact of qualitative assessment regimes is more often thought of as benign. Drawing on an analysis of impact case studies submitted to REF 2014, Justyna Bandola-Gill and Katherine E. Smith, explore how the narrative turn in research assessment has created four distinct narratives for impact case studies. Finding these narratives to diverge from more complex accounts of real-world impact, they assess the relative value of this ‘governance by narrative’

Conflicted and confused? Health harming industries and research funding in leading UK universities

University researchers face growing expectations to engage with commercial sources of funding. This pressure is likely to increase in the context of the covid-19 squeeze1 and, in the UK, both Brexit and a research impact agenda promoting external collaboration.2 Alongside this, there are efforts to reduce conflicts of interest in research involving pharmaceutical and medical device companies,3 and policies rejecting tobacco industry funding.4 Yet limited attention has been paid to funding from other health damaging industries such as alcohol, gambling, and ultra-processed food and drink. How well are universities equipped to manage such conflicts of interest

Peer victimisation in early childhood; observations of participant roles and sex differences

During middle childhood and adolescence, victimisation appears to be a group process involving different participant roles. However, peer reports with younger children (four to six years old) have failed to identify the participant roles of assistant (to the bully) reinforcers or defenders with much reliability. This may be because peer victimisation is a more dyadic process among younger children (behavioural reality), or because of limitations in young children’s cognitive capacity to identify these behaviours (cognitive limitations). The findings of an observational study which examined the group nature of peer victimisation among young children are presented. Observations were made of 56 children aged four and five years using time sampling during free play at school (totalling 43.5 h of observation). Records were made of their behaviour when an onlooker witnessed aggression by others, and also of others’ behaviour when they were being aggressive or being victimised. Although children other than the aggressor and target were present in nearly two thirds of the episodes of peer victimisation observed, few exhibited behavioural responses in line with the assistant, reinforcer or defender roles. This supports the behavioural reality rather than the cognitive limitations explanation. Sex differences were observed in types of aggression displayed by children, with boys more likely than girls to be physically aggressive. Children were less likely to be aggressive to other-sex peers and were most likely to be victimised by children of the same sex as them. There were also sex differences in children’s onlooker behaviour. The implications for our understanding of the development of peer victimisation and bullying in children are discussed

Evidence on Use of PAMs with Lateral Elbow Tendinopathy: An Evidence-based Practice Project

The overall focus of each of case scenarios are related to assessment or interventions that are related to Choosing Wisely Campaign items 1, 2, 3, 5, 8, 10. Case scenarios were developed related to each initiative with clientele and conditions across the lifespan in various practice settings. Practice settings included school district, outpatient pediatric, primary care, skilled nursing facility, work rehabilitation, and acute care

Levelling up : a serious attempt to reduce regional inequalities in health?

The Levelling Up white paper,[1] released in February after significant delay, outlines the UK government's much anticipated strategy for tackling regional inequality. The centrepiece of the Conservative's reform agenda, 'levelling up' is presented as a solution to the UK's long-standing, stark geographical inequalities (e.g. see Box 1). Although 'levelling up' is already permeating political and media discourse,[2] the white paper is the first UK government attempt to translate this broad idea into specific policy commitments to address place-based inequalities ('white papers' are government documents that set out proposals for future legislation). It has already been criticised for failing to provide any additional resources, in the context of a cost of living crisis,[3] and for not acknowledging that the Conservative Party has been in power, at UK level, 'for 30 of the last 43 years and is [therefore] responsible for much of the damage' described.[4] Nonetheless, it has been cautiously welcomed by combined authorities in the north of England[5] and some think tanks.[6,7] Here, we present an analysis of: (i) potential opportunities for tackling geographical health inequalities; (ii) tensions and concerns that may inhibit effective policy action; and (iii) blind spots and omissions. We conclude by arguing for a far bolder policy response to the UK’s health inequalities

Using nasal sprays to prevent respiratory tract infections: A qualitative study of online consumer reviews and primary care patient interviews

OBJECTIVES: Nasal sprays could be a promising approach to preventing respiratory tract infections (RTIs). This study explored lay people’s perceptions and experiences of using nasal sprays to prevent RTIs to identify barriers and facilitators to their adoption and continued use. DESIGN: Qualitative research. Study 1 thematically analysed online consumer reviews of an RTI prevention nasal spray. Study 2 interviewed patients about their reactions to and experiences of a digital intervention that promotes and supports nasal spray use for RTI prevention (reactively: at ‘first signs’ of infection and preventatively: following possible/probable exposure to infection). Interview transcripts were analysed using thematic analysis. SETTING: Primary care, UK. PARTICIPANTS: 407 online customer reviews. 13 purposively recruited primary care patients who had experienced recurrent infections and/or had risk factors for severe infections. RESULTS: Both studies identified various factors that might influence nasal spray use including: high motivation to avoid RTIs, particularly during the COVID-19 pandemic; fatalistic views about RTIs; beliefs about alternative prevention methods; the importance of personal recommendation; perceived complexity and familiarity of nasal sprays; personal experiences of spray success or failure; tolerable and off-putting side effects; concerns about medicines; and the nose as unpleasant and unhygienic. CONCLUSIONS: People who suffer disruptive, frequent or severe RTIs or who are vulnerable to RTIs are interested in using a nasal spray for prevention. They also have doubts and concerns and may encounter problems. Some of these may be reduced or eliminated by providing nasal spray users with information and advice that addresses these concerns or helps people overcome difficulties

Germany and the United States: Reliable Allies. But Disagreement on Russia, Global Leadership and Trade

This Pew Research Center report, in association with Bertelsmann Foundation, examines American and German attitudes toward each other and their respective geopolitical roles. This report is based on telephone surveys in the United States and Germany. In the U.S., interviews were conducted February 26 to March 1, 2015 among a national sample of 1,003 persons, 18 years of age or older. In Germany, interviews were conducted February 24-25, 2015 among a national sample of 963 persons, 18 years of age or older. For more details, see survey methods and topline results