Dataset Information

Publication rate for funded studies from a major UK health research funder: a cohort study.

ABSTRACT:

Objectives

This study aimed to investigate what percentage of National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme-funded projects have published their final reports in the programme's journal HTA and to explore reasons for non-publication.

Design

Retrospective cohort study.

Setting

Failure to publish findings from research is a significant area of research waste. It has previously been suggested that potentially over 50% of studies funded are never published.

Participants

All NIHR HTA projects with a planned submission date for their final report for publication in the journal series on or before 9 December 2011 were included.

Primary and secondary outcome measures

The projects were classified according to the type of research, whether they had been published or not; if not yet published, whether they would be published in the future or not. The reasons for non-publication were investigated.

Results

628 projects were included: 582 (92.7%) had published a monograph; 19 (3%) were expected to publish a monograph; 13 (2.1%) were discontinued studies and would not publish; 12 (1.9%) submitted a report which did not lead to a publication as a monograph; and two (0.3%) did not submit a report. Overall, 95.7% of HTA studies either have published or will publish a monograph: 94% for those commissioned in 2002 or before and 98% for those commissioned after 2002. Of the 27 projects for which there will be no report, the majority (21) were commissioned in 2002 or before. Reasons why projects failed to complete included failure to recruit; issues concerning the organisation where the research was taking place; drug licensing issues; staffing issues; and access to data.

Conclusions

The percentage of HTA projects for which a monograph is published is high. The advantages of funding organisations requiring publication in their own journal include avoidance of publication bias and research waste.

SUBMITTER: Turner S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC3646183 | biostudies-literature | 2013 May

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Publications

Publication rate for funded studies from a major UK health research funder: a cohort study.

Turner S S Wright D D Maeso R R Cook A A Milne R R

BMJ open 20130502 5

<h4>Objectives</h4>This study aimed to investigate what percentage of National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Health Technology Assessment (HTA) Programme-funded projects have published their final reports in the programme's journal HTA and to explore reasons for non-publication.<h4>Design</h4>Retrospective cohort study.<h4>Setting</h4>Failure to publish findings from research is a significant area of research waste. It has previously been suggested that potentially over 50% of studies fun ...[more]

PMID: 23645914

Similar Datasets

Project description:BackgroundIn the UK, most funding bodies now expect a commitment or effort on the part of grant holders to disseminate the findings of their research. The emphasis is on ensuring that publicly funded research is made available, can be used to support decision making, and ultimately improve the quality and delivery of healthcare provided. In this study, we aimed to describe the dissemination practices and impacts of applied and public health researchers working across the UK.MethodsWe conducted a survey of 485 UK-based principal investigators of publicly funded applied and public health research. Participants were contacted by email and invited to complete an online questionnaire via an embedded URL. Gift vouchers were given to all participants who completed the questionnaire. Four reminder emails were sent out to non-respondents at one, two, three, and four weeks; a fifth postal reminder was also undertaken.ResultsA total of 243/485 (50%) questionnaires were returned (232 completed, 11 declining to participate). Most researchers recognise the importance of and appear committed to research dissemination. However, most dissemination activity beyond the publishing of academic papers appears to be undertaken an ad hoc fashion. There is some evidence that access to dissemination advice and support may facilitate more policy interactions; though access to such resources is lacking at an institutional level, and advice from funders can be variable. Although a minority of respondents routinely record details about the impact of their research, when asked about impact in relation to specific research projects most were able to provide simple narrative descriptions.ConclusionsResearchers recognise the importance of and appear committed to disseminating the findings of their work. Although researchers are focussed on academic publication, a range of dissemination activities are being applied albeit in an ad hoc fashion. However, what constitutes effective dissemination (in terms of impact and return on investment) remains unclear. Researchers need greater and clearer guidance on how best to plan, resource, and facilitate their dissemination activities.

Project description:ObjectivesTo determine whether data on research studies held by the UK Health Research Authority (HRA) could be summarised automatically with minimal manual intervention. There are numerous initiatives to reduce research waste by improving the design, conduct, analysis and reporting of clinical studies. However, quantitative data on the characteristics of clinical studies and the impact of the various initiatives are limited.DesignFeasibility study, using 1 year of data.SettingWe worked with the HRA on a pilot study using research applications submitted for UK-wide ethical review. We extracted into a single dataset, information held in anonymised XML files by the Integrated Research Application System (IRAS) and the HRA Assessment Review Portal (HARP). Research applications from 2014 to 2016 were provided. We used standard text extraction methods to assess information held in free-text fields. We use simple, descriptive methods to summarise the research activities that we extracted.ParticipantsNot applicable-records-based study INTERVENTIONS: Not applicable.Primary and secondary outcome measuresFeasibility of extraction and processing.ResultsWe successfully imported 1775 non-duplicate research applications from the XML files into a single database. Of these, 963 were randomised controlled trials and 812 were other studies. Most studies received a favourable opinion. There was limited patient and public involvement in the studies. Most, but not all, studies were planned for publication of results. Novel study designs (eg, adaptive and Bayesian designs) were infrequently reported.ConclusionsWe have demonstrated that the data submitted from IRAS to the HRA and its HARP system are accessible and can be queried for information. We strongly encourage the development of fully resourced collaborative projects to further this work. This would aid understanding of how study characteristics change over time and across therapeutic areas, as well as the progress of initiatives to improve the quality and relevance of research studies.

Project description:BackgroundBuilding on an approach developed to assess the economic returns to cardiovascular research, we estimated the economic returns from UK public and charitable funded cancer-related research that arise from the net value of the improved health outcomes.MethodsTo assess these economic returns from cancer-related research in the UK we estimated: 1) public and charitable expenditure on cancer-related research in the UK from 1970 to 2009; 2) net monetary benefit (NMB), that is, the health benefit measured in quality adjusted life years (QALYs) valued in monetary terms (using a base-case value of a QALY of GB£25,000) minus the cost of delivering that benefit, for a prioritised list of interventions from 1991 to 2010; 3) the proportion of NMB attributable to UK research; 4) the elapsed time between research funding and health gain; and 5) the internal rate of return (IRR) from cancer-related research investments on health benefits. We analysed the uncertainties in the IRR estimate using sensitivity analyses to illustrate the effect of some key parameters.ResultsIn 2011/12 prices, total expenditure on cancer-related research from 1970 to 2009 was £15 billion. The NMB of the 5.9 million QALYs gained from the prioritised interventions from 1991 to 2010 was £124 billion. Calculation of the IRR incorporated an estimated elapsed time of 15 years. We related 17% of the annual NMB estimated to be attributable to UK research (for each of the 20 years 1991 to 2010) to 20 years of research investment 15 years earlier (that is, for 1976 to 1995). This produced a best-estimate IRR of 10%, compared with 9% previously estimated for cardiovascular disease research. The sensitivity analysis demonstrated the importance of smoking reduction as a major source of improved cancer-related health outcomes.ConclusionsWe have demonstrated a substantive IRR from net health gain to public and charitable funding of cancer-related research in the UK, and further validated the approach that we originally used in assessing the returns from cardiovascular research. In doing so, we have highlighted a number of weaknesses and key assumptions that need strengthening in further investigations. Nevertheless, these cautious estimates demonstrate that the returns from past cancer research have been substantial, and justify the investments made during the period 1976 to 1995.

Project description:ImportanceResearch funders can reduce research waste and publication bias by requiring their grantees to register and report clinical trials.ObjectiveTo determine the extent to which 21 major European research funders' efforts to reduce research waste and publication bias in clinical trials meet World Health Organization (WHO) best practice benchmarks and to investigate areas for improvement.Design, setting, and participantsThis cross-sectional study was based on 2 to 3 independent assessments of each funder's publicly available documentation and validation of results with funders during 2021. Included funders were the 21 largest nonmultilateral public and philanthropic medical research funders in Europe, with a combined budget of more than US $22 billion.ExposuresScoring of funders using an 11-item assessment tool based on WHO best practice benchmarks, grouped into 4 broad categories: trial registries, academic publication, monitoring, and sanctions. Funder references to reporting standards were captured.Main outcomes and measuresThe primary outcome was funder adoption or nonadoption of 11 policy and monitoring measures to reduce research waste and publication bias as set out by WHO best practices. The secondary outcomes were whether and how funder policies referred to reporting standards. Outcomes were preregistered after a pilot phase that used the same outcome measures.ResultsAmong 21 of the largest nonmultilateral public and philanthropic funders in Europe, some best practices were more widely adopted than others, with 14 funders (66.7%) mandating prospective trial registration and 6 funders (28.6%) requiring that trial results be made public on trial registries within 12 months of trial completion. Less than half of funders actively monitored whether trials were registered (9 funders [42.9%]) or whether results were made public (8 funders [38.1%]). Funders implemented a mean of 4 of 11 best practices in clinical trial transparency (36.4%) set out by WHO. The extent to which funders adopted WHO best practice items varied widely, ranging from 0 practices for the French Centre National de la Recherche Scientifique and the ministries of health of Germany and Italy to 10 practices (90.9%) for the UK National Institute of Health Research. Overall, 9 funders referred to reporting standards in their policies.Conclusions and relevanceThis study found that many European medical research funder policy and monitoring measures fell short of WHO best practices. These findings suggest that funders worldwide may need to identify and address gaps in policies and processes.

Dataset Information

Publication rate for funded studies from a major UK health research funder: a cohort study.

Objectives

Design

Setting

Participants

Primary and secondary outcome measures

Results

Conclusions

Publications

Publication rate for funded studies from a major UK health research funder: a cohort study.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets