Translational researchers' training and development needs, preferences, and barriers: a survey in a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre in the United Kingdom

The objective was to identify translational researchers’ training and development needs, preferences, and barriers to attending training. This cross-sectional study involved an online questionnaire survey. The research population comprised a convenience sample of translational researchers and support staff (N = 798) affiliated with the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. The response rate was 24%. Of 189 respondents, 114 were women (60%) and 75 were men (40%). The respondents were mainly research scientists (31%), medical doctors and dentists (17%), and research nurses and midwives (16%). Many of the respondents had attended at least one training course in the last year (68%). Training in statistics and data analysis was the most common training received (20%). Leadership training was the most wanted training (25%). Morning was the most preferred time of training (60%). Half a day was the ideal duration of a training course (41%). The main teaching hospital site was the most preferred location of training (46%). An interactive workshop was the most favored delivery style of training (52%). Most common barriers to attending training were the lack of time (31%), work (21%) and clinical commitments (19%), and family and childcare responsibilities (14%). Some differences in training needs, preferences, and barriers were found by gender and role, though these were not statistically significant. Translational researchers want short, easily accessible, and interactive training sessions during the working day. The training needs, preferences, and barriers to attending training need to be considered while developing inclusive training programs in biomedical research settings

A large National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Biomedical Research Centre facilitates impactful cross-disciplinary and collaborative translational research publications and research collaboration networks: a bibliometric evaluation study

Background The evaluation of translational health research is important for various reasons such as the research impact assessment, research funding allocation, accountability, and strategic research policy formulation. The purpose of this study was to evaluate the research productivity, strength and diversity of research collaboration networks and impact of research supported by a large biomedical research centre in the United Kingdom (UK). Methods Bibliometric analysis of research publications by translational researchers affiliated with the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) from April 2012 to March 2017. Results Analysis included 2377 translational research publications that were published during the second 5-year funding period of the NIHR Oxford BRC. Author details were available for 99.75% of the publications with DOIs (2359 of 2365 with DOIs), and the number of authors per publication was median 9 (mean  = 18.03, SD  = 3.63, maximum  = 2467 authors). Author lists also contained many consortia, groups, committees, and teams (n  = 165 in total), with 1238 additional contributors, where membership was reported. The BRC co-authorship i.e., research collaboration network for these publications involved 20,229 nodes (authors, of which 1606 nodes had Oxford affiliations), and approximately 4.3 million edges (authorship linkages). Articles with a valid DOIs (2365 of 2377, 99.5%) were collectively cited more than 155,000 times and the average Field Citation Ratio was median 6.75 (geometric mean  = 7.12) while the average Relative Citation Ratio was median 1.50 (geometric mean  = 1.83) for the analysed publications. Conclusions The NIHR Oxford BRC generated substantial translational research publications and facilitated a huge collaborative network of translational researchers working in complex structures and consortia, which shows success across the whole of this BRC funding period. Further research involving continued uptake of unique persistent identifiers and the tracking of other research outputs such as clinical innovations and patents would allow a more detailed understanding of large research enterprises such as NIHR BRCs in the UK

Evaluation of the effectiveness of digital technology interventions to reduce loneliness in older adults: systematic review and meta-analysis

Background: Loneliness is a serious public health issue, and its burden is increasing in many countries. Loneliness affects social, physical, and mental health, and it is associated with multimorbidity and premature mortality. In addition to social interventions, a range of digital technology interventions (DTIs) are being used to tackle loneliness. However, there is limited evidence on the effectiveness of DTIs in reducing loneliness, especially in adults. The effectiveness of DTIs in reducing loneliness needs to be systematically assessed. Objective: The objective of this study is to assess the effectiveness of DTIs in reducing loneliness in older adults. Methods: We conducted electronic searches in PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and Web of Science for empirical studies published in English from January 1, 2010, to July 31, 2019. The study selection criteria included interventional studies that used any type of DTIs to reduce loneliness in adults (aged ≥18 years) with a minimum intervention duration of 3 months and follow-up measurements at least 3 months after the intervention. Two researchers independently screened articles and extracted data using the PICO (participant, intervention, comparator, and outcome) framework. The primary outcome measure was loneliness. Loneliness scores in both the intervention and control groups at baseline and at follow-up at 3, 4, 6, and 12 months after the intervention were extracted. Data were analyzed via narrative synthesis and meta-analysis using RevMan (The Cochrane Collaboration) software. Results: A total of 6 studies were selected from 4939 screened articles. These studies included 1 before and after study and 5 clinical trials (4 randomized clinical trials and 1 quasi-experimental study). All of these studies enrolled a total of 646 participants (men: n=154, 23.8%; women: n=427, 66.1%; no gender information: n=65, 10.1%) with an average age of 73-78 years (SD 6-11). Five clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis, and by using the random effects model, standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated for each trial and pooled across studies at the 3-, 4-, and 6-month follow-ups. The overall effect estimates showed no statistically significant difference in the effectiveness of DTIs compared with that of usual care or non-DTIs at follow-up at 3 months (SMD 0.02; 95% CI −0.36 to 0.40; P=.92), 4 months (SMD −1.11; 95% CI −2.60 to 0.38; P=.14), and 6 months (SMD −0.11; 95% CI −0.54 to 0.32; P=.61). The quality of evidence was very low to moderate in these trials. Conclusions: Our meta-analysis shows no evidence supporting the effectiveness of DTIs in reducing loneliness in older adults. Future research may consider randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes and longer durations for both the interventions and follow-ups

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

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

A Framework for Resilience Thinking

AbstractThe first step to achieving an understanding of how complex adaptive systems such as enterprises can be made more resilient is to understand what is meant by ‘resilience’. Resilience as a concept has been contextually developed in a wide range of disciplines, providing a variety of resilience concepts of various foci and potential relevance to enterprise systems. This paper demonstrates how the use of systems thinking principles and systems thinking methods have contributed to the development of a research framework for enterprise resilience, by drawing together resilience concepts from multiple disciplines. Soft Systems Methodology is used to draw together viewpoints from fields including ecology, physics, sociology, psychology and disaster management. The incorporation of an enterprise system model enables resilience concepts to be contextualised for enterprises and is used to develop a set of key features of a resilience system, providing a framework to guide further research. Significant contributions are an inclusive theoretical framework for a resilient enterprise and an example of the use of systems thinking methods as a means of organising multi-disciplinary research, including the novel use of Wilson's Enterprise Model in developing the theoretical framework

Recruitment, retention, and training of citizen scientists in translational medicine research: a citizen science initiative on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease

Citizen science is a participatory science approach in which members of the public (citizens) collaborate with scientists and professional researchers and become involved in research and innovation activities, resulting in the co-creation of scientific knowledge and innovation. Citizen science has been widely applied in research, particularly in the social sciences, environmental sciences, information and communication technologies, and public health. However, the application of this approach in clinical sciences, particularly in translational medicine research, is still nascent. This exploratory study involved members of the public (citizen scientists) in a translational medicine experiment on non-alcoholic fatty liver disease that incorporated a lifestyle and weight-loss intervention. The aim of this paper is to report successful methods and approaches for the recruitment, retention, and training of citizen scientists. For the citizen scientists’ recruitment, online calls placed on the websites of our research project and biomedical research center and targeted emails were the most helpful. Of the 14 members of the public who expressed interest in our study, six were recruited as citizen scientists. Citizen scientists were mostly female (n = 5, 83%), white (n = 3, 50%), over 50 years of age (n = 4, 67%), educated to postgraduate level (n = 5, 83%), and either retired or not in employment (n = 5, 83%). The retention rate was 83% (n = 5), and the dropout rate was 17% (n = 1). We arranged instructor-led interactive online training sessions (an hour-long one-on-one session and two-hour group sessions). Research skills training covered ethics in research and qualitative and quantitative data analysis. Citizen scientists were given several incentives, such as reimbursement of travel and care costs, selection as citizen scientists of the month, publications of their blogs and perspective articles, and co-authorship and acknowledgement in papers and project deliverables. To conclude, members of the public (particularly middle-aged white women with postgraduate education) are interested in becoming citizen scientists in translational medicine research. Their retention rate is higher, and they can contribute to different research activities. However, they need training to develop their research skills and expertise. The training should be simple, comprehensive, and flexible to accommodate the schedules of individual citizen scientists. They deserve incentives as they work on a voluntary basis

Identifying seasonal and temporal trends in the pressures experienced by hospitals related to unscheduled care

BACKGROUND: As part of an electronic dashboard operated by Public Health Wales, senior managers at hospitals in Wales report daily 'escalation' scores which reflect management opinion on the pressure a hospital is experiencing and ability to meet ongoing demand with respect to unscheduled care. An analysis was undertaken of escalation scores returned for 18 hospitals in Wales between the years 2006 and 2014 inclusive, with a view to identifying systematic temporal patterns in pressure experienced by hospitals in relation to unscheduled care. METHODS: Exploratory data analysis indicated the presence of within-year cyclicity in average daily scores over all hospitals. In order to quantify this cyclicity, a Generalised Linear Mixed Model was fitted which incorporated a trigonometric function (sine and cosine) to capture within-year change in escalation. In addition, a 7-level categorical day of the week effect was fitted as well as a 3-level categorical Christmas holiday variable based on patterns observed in exploration of the raw data. RESULTS: All of the main effects investigated were found to be statistically significant. Firstly, significant differences emerged in terms of overall pressure reported by individual hospitals. Furthermore, escalation scores were found to vary systematically within-year in a wave-like fashion for all hospitals (but not between hospitals) with the period of highest pressure consistently observed to occur in winter and lowest pressure in summer. In addition to this annual variation, pressure reported by hospitals was also found to be influenced by day of the week (low at weekends, high early in the working week) and especially low over the Christmas period but high immediately afterwards. CONCLUSIONS: Whilst unpredictable to a degree, quantifiable pressure experienced by hospitals can be anticipated according to models incorporating systematic temporal patterns. In the context of finite resources for healthcare services, these findings could optimise staffing schedules and inform resource utilisation

Gender parity in scientific authorship in a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre: a bibliometric analysis

Objective Scientific authorship is a vital marker of achievement in academic careers and gender equity is a key performance metric in research. However, there is little understanding of gender equity in publications in biomedical research centres funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). This study assesses the gender parity in scientific authorship of biomedical research. Design Descriptive, cross-sectional, retrospective bibliometric study. Setting NIHR Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (BRC). Data Data comprised 2409 publications that were either accepted or published between April 2012 and March 2017. The publications were classified as basic science studies, clinical studies (both trial and non-trial studies) and other studies (comments, editorials, systematic reviews, reviews, opinions, book chapters, meeting reports, guidelines and protocols). Main outcome measures Gender of authors, defined as a binary variable comprising either male or female categories, in six authorship categories: first author, joint first authors, first corresponding author, joint corresponding authors, last author and joint last authors. Results Publications comprised 39% clinical research (n=939), 27% basic research (n=643) and 34% other types of research (n=827). The proportion of female authors as first author (41%), first corresponding authors (34%) and last author (23%) was statistically significantly lower than male authors in these authorship categories (p<0.001). Of total joint first authors (n=458), joint corresponding authors (n=169) and joint last authors (n=229), female only authors comprised statistically significant (p<0.001) smaller proportions, that is, 15% (n=69), 29% (n=49) and 10% (n=23) respectively, compared with male only authors in these joint authorship categories. There was a statistically significant association between gender of the last author with gender of the first author (p<0.001), first corresponding author (p<0.001) and joint last author (p<0.001). The mean journal impact factor (JIF) was statistically significantly higher when the first corresponding author was male compared with female (Mean JIF: 10.00 vs 8.77, p=0.020); however, the JIF was not statistically different when there were male and female authors as first authors and last authors. Conclusions Although the proportion of female authors is significantly lower than the proportion of male authors in all six categories of authorship analysed, the proportions of male and female last authors are comparable to their respective proportions as principal investigators in the BRC. These findings suggest positive trends and the NIHR Oxford BRC doing very well in gender parity in the senior (last) authorship category. Male corresponding authors are more likely to publish articles in prestigious journals with high impact factor while both male and female authors at first and last authorship positions publish articles in equally prestigious journals

Gender difference and effect of pharmacotherapy: findings from a smoking cessation service

Background: Smoking cessation services are available in England to provide assistance to those wishing to quit smoking. Data from one such service were analysed in order to investigate differences in quit rate between males and females prescribed with different treatments. Methods: A logistic regression model was fitted to the data using the binary response of self-reported quit (failed attempt = 0, successful attempt = 1), validated by Carbon Monoxide (CO) monitoring, 4 weeks after commencing programme. Main effects fitted were: client gender; age; region; the type of advisory sessions; and pharmacotherapy, Nicotine Replacement Therapy (NRT) or Varenicline. A second model was fitted including all main effects plus two-way interactions except region. These models were repeated using 12-week self-reported quit as the outcome. Results: At 4 weeks, all main effects were statistically significant, with males more likely (odds ratio and 95 % CI, females v males = 0.88 [0.79–0.97]), older smokers more likely (adjusted odds ratios [OR] and 95 % confidence interval [CI] respectively for groups 20–29, 30–49, 50–69 and 70+ vs 12–19 age group: 1.79 [1.39–2.31], 2.12 [1.68–2.68], 2.30 [1.80–2. 92] and 2.47 [1.81–3.37] and for overall difference between groups, χ 2 (4) = 53.5, p < 0.001) and clients being treated with Varenicline more likely to have successfully quit than those on NRT (adjusted OR and 95 % CI for Varenicline vs NRT = 1.41 [1.21–1.64]). Statistically significant interactions were observed between (i) gender and type of counselling, and (ii) age and type of counselling. Similar results were seen in relation to main effects at 12 weeks except that type of counselling was non-significant. The only significant interaction at this stage was between gender and pharmacotherapy (adjusted OR and 95 % CI for females using Varenicline versus all other groups = 1.43 [1.06–1.94]). Conclusion: Gender and treatment options were identified as predictors of abstinence at both 4 and 12 weeks after quitting smoking. Furthermore, interactions were observed between gender and (i) type of counselling received (ii) pharmacotherapy. In particular, the quit rate in women at 12 weeks was significantly improved in conjunction with Varenicline use. These findings have implications for service delivery