Perceptions of gender equity and markers of achievement in a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre : a qualitative study.

Background: The need to improve gender equity (GE) in academic medicine is well documented. Biomedical Research Centres (BRCs), partnerships between leading National Health Service (NHS) organizations and universities in England, conduct world-class translational research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). In 2011, eligibility for BRC funding was restricted to universities demonstrating sustained GE success recognized by the Athena SWAN Charter for Women in Science Silver awards. Despite this structural change, GE research in BRC settings is underdeveloped, yet critical to the acceleration of women’s advancement and leadership. To explore both women’s and men’s perceptions of GE and current markers of achievement in a BRC setting. Methods: Thematic analysis of data from two research projects: 53 GE survey respondents’ free-text comments (34 women, 16 men), and 16 semi-structured interviews with women affiliated to the NIHR Oxford BRC. Results: Four major themes emerged from the analysis: perceptions of the Athena SWAN Charter for Women in Science (GE policy); views on monitoring GE in BRCs; views on current markers of achievement in academia and GE; and recommendations for actions to improve GE in BRC settings. Monitoring of GE in BRCs was deemed to be important, but complex. Participants felt that current markers of achievement were not equitable to women, as they did not take contextual factors into account such as maternity leave and caring responsibilities. BRC-specific organizational policies and metrics are needed in order to monitor and catalyse GE. Conclusions: Markers of achievement for monitoring GE in BRCs should consider contextual factors specific to BRCs and women’s career progression and professional advancement. GE markers of achievement should be complemented with broader aspects of equality, diversity and inclusion

Adopting a Citizen Science Approach in Translational Experimental Medicine Research in Non-Alcoholic Fatty Liver Disease: A Study Protocol

Citizen science approaches are widely and successfully used in biological, environmental, and ecological sciences; however, they are rarely applied in other domains, such as translational health research, notably in the field of liver disease and metabolism. We have designed a study that aims to explore the application of the citizen science approach in a translational experimental medicine study on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease (NAFLD) and a 12-week lifestyle and weight loss program. In this methodological paper, we describe the process of involving citizen scientists in the study. We will recruit a convenience sample of 31 participants (with and without NAFLD) and a half-dozen citizen scientists (members of the public). Citizen scientists will work alongside clinical and non-clinical researchers in a translational experimental medicine study on NAFLD. Citizen scientists will be involved in the co-design and/or review of data collection tools (e.g., semi-structured open-ended questionnaire surveys and semi-structured wellbeing diaries completed by the participants), co-analysis of data on participants’ experiences and motivations, co-drafts of research findings and papers, and suggestions for policy recommendations. Citizen scientists will be trained in the research tasks they will undertake, and will be either co-authors or their names will be mentioned in the acknowledgements in research paper(s) based on the level of research contributions. Lessons learned from implementing citizen science in this study will help to reveal the advantages, limitations, and implications of involving citizen scientists in the translational medicine research. Knowing citizen scientists’ motivations, expectations, training needs, and overall experience of involvement in this study could provide insights, which could inform the planning and conduct of future translational research studies. Involving citizen scientists in translational medicine research is an important step in extending research opportunities for members of the public; however, there may be methodological challenges, which may be identified and resolved by more research studies

An examination of user costs in relation to smokers using a cessation service based in the UK

Background: Smoking cessation services provide support to smokers who desire to quit. Published studies to date have looked at the cost and benefit of service provision but typically focus on clinical trial data. Using routinely collected observational data, this study examined the costs involved in providing a service in terms of average health care expenditure per successful quit attempt in addition to population – level cost-effectiveness measures. Methods: Data were analysed from Quit-51 smoking cessation service across five English regions between March 2013 and March 2016 (n = 9116). For each user, costs were estimated in relation to: (i) time spent with advisers; (ii) prescription of pharmacotherapy. The total costs compared against self-reported quit at 12 weeks, which represents the time period for which the service is offered. Cost per quit (CPQ), with 95% confidence interval (CI), was calculated by relating total expenditure to the number of quitters, firstly for the whole dataset and then by subgroups of key categorical variables, namely; gender, age group, the Fagerstrom test for nicotine dependence (FTND) and Index of Multiple Deprivation (IMD). Confidence intervals (CIs) for the mean estimates were derived using a non-parametric bootstrap procedure. Parameters derived from the calculation in relation to treatment were used to estimate potential long-term population outcomes under a scenario where the Quit 51 prescription was rolled out nationally. Results: The overall mean CPQ for this sample as estimated at 12 weeks was £403.51 (95% CI = £393.36 to £413.76). The estimated CPQs at this time point were comparable for those aged 12–19 (£423.56, 95% CI = £369.45 to £492.60) and those aged 20–29 (£430.76, 95% CI = £395.95 to £470.56). Differences were also seen in relation to other subgroups considered. The treatment parameters translated to a projected increase of 1.5 quality-adjusted life years (QALYs) per 1000 smokers in the short-term and 23.4 QALYS per 1000 smokers based on a lifetime horizon. Conclusions: These figures throw light on service expenditure for each successful quit over the timeframe for which the service is offered in addition to highlighting variability in these costs across different subgroups of the user population

Rapid research response to the COVID-19 pandemic: perspectives from a National Institute for Health Biomedical Research Centre

With over 5 million COVID-19 deaths at the time of writing, the response of research leaders was and is critical to developing treatments to control the global pandemic. As clinical research leaders urgently repurposed existing research programmes and resources towards the COVID-19 pandemic, there is an opportunity to reflect on practices observed in Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) settings. BRCs are partnerships between leading National Health Service organizations and universities in England conducting translational research for patient benefit funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). Oxford BRC-supported researchers have led the rapid set-up of numerous COVID-19 research studies at record speed with global impact. However, the specific contribution of BRCs to the COVID-19 pandemic in the literature is sparse. Firstly, we reflect on the strategic work of clinical research leaders, creating resilient NIHR research infrastructure to facilitate rapid COVID-19 research. Secondly, we discuss how COVID-19 rapid research exemplars supported by Oxford BRC illustrate “capacity”, “readiness” and “capability” at an organizational and individual level to respond to the global pandemic. Rapid response research in turbulent environments requires strategic organizational leadership to create resilient infrastructure and resources. The rapid research exemplars from the Oxford BRC illustrate capability and capacity at an organizational and individual level in a dynamic environment to respond during the COVID-19 public health challenge. This response was underpinned by swift adaptation and repurposing of existing research resources and expertise by the Oxford BRC to deliver rapid research to address different aspects of COVID-19

Does a biomedical research centre affect patient care in local hospitals?

Abstract Background Biomedical 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. Methods First, 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\u2019s 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\u2019s acute hospitals to discover what impacts they observed from research generally and from Oxford BRC\u2019s 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\u2019 responses, and compared them with an existing taxonomy of mechanisms through which quality of healthcare may be affected in research-active settings. Results We were able to interview 17 research leaders at the Oxford BRC and 19 senior clinicians at Oxford\u2019s 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. Conclusions Impacts 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

Demonstration of a Fair Level of Agreement Between Escalation Scores Reported by Hospital Managers and Analysis of Stress-Related Hospital Metrics

Background: The National Health System in Wales has developed a novel national electronic dashboard which reports a daily “escalation score,” reflecting management’s opinion of the pressure each hospital is facing, primarily due to unscheduled care. The aim of this study was to examine the possibility of replacing human scores with a quantitative model, based on the relationship between reported escalation scores and selected hospital metrics. Methods: Generalized linear mixed models were used to model the association between hospital metrics and escalation scores between October one year and October the next year utilizing hospital bed occupancy rate, ambulance hours lost waiting outside emergency departments, number of “boarded out” patients in the hospital, and the daily ratio of admissions to discharges in the hospital. These models were tested against a subsequent period (December unto May the following year), using three models: “general,” “hospital-specific,” and “group-specific.” The model generated by the initial time frame was tested against data from the subsequent time frame using weighted κ. Results: Across 16 hospitals, using 3343 escalation scores, the rates of agreement and weighted κ were: general model (48.8%; 0.16), hospital-specific model (45.0%; 0.25), and group-specific model (43.1%; 0.25). A 17th small hospital was excluded due to missing data. Conclusions: This is novel research as no similar studies were identified, although the topic is important as it addresses a major current health-care challenge. Automated scores can be derived which have the advantage of being derived objectively, avoiding human inter- and intraindividual variation. Prospective testing is recommended to assess potential service planning benefit

Long-Term Conditions in Older People are Linked with Loneliness, but a Sense of Coherence Buffers the Adverse Effects on Quality of Life: A Cross-Sectional Study

Background: The impact of disability, long-term conditions, rurality, living alone, and being a carer on health has some evidence base, but the extent to which a strong sense of coherence (SoC), a factor hypothesised to promote wellbeing, may moderate these associations is unknown. A model of physical, environmental and social factors on quality of life was tested, with particular emphasis on whether a strong SoC buffered (mitigated) these determinants of quality of life.Material and Methods: A cross-sectional postal survey was undertaken of a random sample of 1471 respondents aged over 65 years, across a population of rural individuals. Physical, environmental, and psychological variables were assessed against quality of life using ANOVA and a generalised linear model including the interaction effects of SoC.Results: ANOVA demonstrated that age, gender, long-term conditions or disability (LTC-D), living alone, > 20 hours unpaid care for others per week, SoC, and loneliness, were associated with lower quality of life (p 0.01), between age and LTC-D, living alone, and poor SoC. Living alone was correlated with emotional and social loneliness; but those with higher SoC were less likely to experience loneliness. In an adjusted generalised linear model, significant associations with a lower quality of life were observed from: LTC-D, emotional loneliness and social loneliness (B= ? 0.44, ? 0.30, and ? 0.39, respectively, all p< 0.001). The only interaction with SoC that was statistically significant (at p< 0.05) was LTC-D. A stronger sense of coherence buffered the negative effects of long-term condition/disability on quality of life.Discussion: The physical, environmental and social factors examined, identified LTC-D and loneliness to be the strongest factors associated with poor quality of life.Conclusion: SoC somewhat buffered the adverse effect of LTC-D on quality of life, but did not do so for loneliness

Correction: A macroeconomic assessment of the impact of medical research expenditure: A case study of NIHR Biomedical Research Centres.

[This corrects the article DOI: 10.1371/journal.pone.0214361.]

Additional file 1: of Does a biomedical research centre affect patient care in local hospitals?

Research theme and working group leaders: interview protocol. (DOC 33 kb

Evaluation of a web based tool to improve health behaviours in healthcare staff

Background: A web-based tool was developed and piloted by being made available to healthcare staff in Wales from September 2012 to March 2013. This evaluation included two primary outcome measures: general health and mental well-being, and six secondary outcome measures: sickness absence, alcohol use, healthy eating, smoking, physical activity and maintaining a healthy BMI. The aim was to assess the feasibility of a web-based tool to improve health behaviours in healthcare staff. Methods: Healthcare staff joined via a website, chose two of five challenges, and recorded their health behaviours using an online tool on a regular basis. Evaluation was undertaken by comparing baseline and follow up questionnaires. Results: 1708 individuals explored the programme’s website, of whom 1320 selected two lifestyle challenges to address. Of these 346 individuals (26.2%; 346/1320) completed the end of project evaluation questions for the main outcome and provided the basis of the evaluation. Comparing pre:post data among respondents who engaged with the programme as a whole, self-reported general health status improved in 35.3% (n = 122, p = 0.001); mental health status improved in 33% (n = 110, p = 0.02); alcohol consumption score (AUDIT-C classification) fell in 27.2% (n = 71, p = 0.001); reported fruit and vegetable consumption (7 day recall) increased (p = 0.001); average time spent on vigorous exercise increased from 40.6 minutes a week to 67.6 minutes a week (p = 0.001); and 41 individuals noted a positive change to their BMI classification category (p = 0.001). Conclusions: Combining interactive web-based tools as part of a multi-media programme is feasible, increases health behaviours and generates interest among a proportion of the healthcare workforce. Further work is required to improve maintenance of engagement over time