Dataset Information

A survey of working conditions within biomedical research in the United Kingdom.

ABSTRACT: Background: Many recent articles have presented a bleak view of career prospects in biomedical research in the US. Too many PhDs and postdocs are trained for too few research positions, creating a "holding-tank" of experienced senior postdocs who are unable to get a permanent position. Coupled with relatively low salaries and high levels of pressure to publish in top-tier academic journals, this has created a toxic environment that is perhaps responsible for a recently observed decline in biomedical postdocs in the US, the so-called "postdocalypse". Methods: In order to address the gulf of information relating to working habits and attitudes of UK-based biomedical researchers, a link to an online survey was included in an article published in the Guardian newspaper. Survey data were collected between 21 ^st March 2016 and 6 ^th November 2016 and analysed to examine discrete profiles for three major career stages: the PhD, the postdoc and the principal investigator. Results: Overall, the data presented here echo trends observed in the US: The 520 UK-based biomedical researchers responding to the survey reported feeling disillusioned with academic research, due to the low chance of getting a permanent position and the long hours required at the bench. Also like the US, large numbers of researchers at each distinct career stage are considering leaving biomedical research altogether. Conclusions: There are several systemic flaws in the academic scientific research machine - for example the continual overproduction of PhDs and the lack of stability in the early-mid stages of a research career - that are slowly being addressed in countries such as the US and Germany. These data suggest that similar flaws also exist in the UK, with a large proportion of respondents concerned about their future in research. To avoid lasting damage to the biomedical research agenda in the UK, addressing such concerns should be a major priority.

SUBMITTER: Riddiford N

PROVIDER: S-EPMC5627577 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Biomedical Research Centres (BRCs) are partnerships between healthcare organisations and universities in England. Their mission is to generate novel treatments, technologies, diagnostics and other interventions that increase the country's international competitiveness, to rapidly translate these innovations into benefits for patients, and to improve efficiency and reduce waste in healthcare. As NIHR Oxford BRC (Oxford BRC) enters its third 5-year funding period, we seek to (1) apply the evidence base on how best to support the various partnerships in this large, multi-stakeholder research system and (2) research how these partnerships play out in a new, ambitious programme of translational research.Organisational case study, informed by the principles of action research. A cross-cutting theme, 'Partnerships for Health, Wealth and Innovation' has been established with multiple sub-themes (drug development, device development, business support and commercialisation, research methodology and statistics, health economics, bioethics, patient and public involvement and engagement, knowledge translation, and education and training) to support individual BRC research themes and generate cross-theme learning. The 'Partnerships' theme will support the BRC's goals by facilitating six types of partnership (with patients and citizens, clinical services, industry, across the NIHR infrastructure, across academic disciplines, and with policymakers and payers) through a range of engagement platforms and activities. We will develop a longitudinal progress narrative centred around exemplar case studies, and apply theoretical models from innovation studies (Triple Helix), sociology of science (Mode 2 knowledge production) and business studies (Value Co-creation). Data sources will be the empirical research studies within individual BRC research themes (who will apply separately for NHS ethics approval), plus documentary analysis and interviews and ethnography with research stakeholders. This study has received ethics clearance through the University of Oxford Central University Research Ethics Committee.We anticipate that this work will add significant value to Oxford BRC. We predict accelerated knowledge translation; closer alignment of the innovation process with patient priorities and the principles of responsible, ethical research; reduction in research waste; new knowledge about the governance and activities of multi-stakeholder research partnerships and the contexts in which they operate; and capacity-building that reflects the future needs of a rapidly-evolving health research system.

Project description:BackgroundHealth research using commercial data is increasing. The evidence on public acceptability and sociodemographic characteristics of individuals willing to share commercial data for health research is scarce.ObjectiveThis survey study investigates the willingness to share commercial data for health research in the United Kingdom with 3 different organizations (government, private, and academic institutions), 5 different data types (internet, shopping, wearable devices, smartphones, and social media), and 10 different invitation methods to recruit participants for research studies with a focus on sociodemographic characteristics and psychological predictors.MethodsWe conducted a web-based survey using quota sampling based on age distribution in the United Kingdom in July 2020 (N=1534). Chi-squared tests tested differences by sociodemographic characteristics, and adjusted ordered logistic regressions tested associations with trust, perceived importance of privacy, worry about data misuse and perceived risks, and perceived benefits of data sharing. The results are shown as percentages, adjusted odds ratios, and 95% CIs.ResultsOverall, 61.1% (937/1534) of participants were willing to share their data with the government and 61% (936/1534) of participants were willing to share their data with academic research institutions compared with 43.1% (661/1534) who were willing to share their data with private organizations. The willingness to share varied between specific types of data-51.8% (794/1534) for loyalty cards, 35.2% (540/1534) for internet search history, 32% (491/1534) for smartphone data, 31.8% (488/1534) for wearable device data, and 30.4% (467/1534) for social media data. Increasing age was consistently and negatively associated with all the outcomes. Trust was positively associated with willingness to share commercial data, whereas worry about data misuse and the perceived importance of privacy were negatively associated with willingness to share commercial data. The perceived risk of sharing data was positively associated with willingness to share when the participants considered all the specific data types but not with the organizations. The participants favored postal research invitations over digital research invitations.ConclusionsThis UK-based survey study shows that willingness to share commercial data for health research varies; however, researchers should focus on effectively communicating their data practices to minimize concerns about data misuse and improve public trust in data science. The results of this study can be further used as a guide to consider methods to improve recruitment strategies in health-related research and to improve response rates and participant retention.

Project description:Tinnitus service provision in the United Kingdom has been investigated from the healthcare provider's perspective demonstrating considerable regional variation particularly regarding availability of psychological treatments. An audiological-based tinnitus service, however, was reportedly available for all tinnitus patients in the UK. The aim of the current study was to define and evaluate nationwide tinnitus healthcare services from the patients' viewpoint.Secondary analyses were performed on data from a 33-item questionnaire provided by the British Tinnitus Association. The questionnaire had been distributed via email and social media.Responses from 937 participants who had or had previously experienced tinnitus were analysed. All but one person had at some time consulted their GP. About one in five received medication in primary care. The majority were referred to secondary care, generally an ENT surgeon or audiovestibular physician; some were referred directly to audiological services. In secondary care the majority underwent audiometric testing and over half underwent MRI scanning. Drugs were prescribed less frequently in secondary care. About one third of patients were referred onwards from diagnostic services in secondary care to receive therapeutic interventions for tinnitus. Therapy was generally delivered by an audiologist or hearing therapist. Just under two fifths of people discharged from secondary care returned to their GP, with most returning within one year. Over a third of this group were re-referred to secondary care. Few patients saw a psychologist (2.6%) though some psychological treatments were delivered by appropriately trained audiologists. Negative counselling from healthcare professionals in both primary and secondary care settings was reported.Although the UK has developed a national service for patients with tinnitus many people find it difficult to access, being blocked at the primary care level or after secondary care diagnostic services. Many of those discharged from secondary care return to their GP within a short space of time and are re-referred to secondary care creating an unsatisfactory and expensive revolving-door pattern of healthcare. Despite psychological treatment modalities having the best evidence base for successful tinnitus management, only a minority of tinnitus patients ever get to meet a psychologist.

Dataset Information

A survey of working conditions within biomedical research in the United Kingdom.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets