Dataset Information

Fundamental challenges in assessing the impact of research infrastructure.

ABSTRACT: Clinical research infrastructure is one of the unsung heroes of the scientific response to the current COVID-19 pandemic. The extensive, long-term funding into research support structures, skilled people, and technology allowed the United Kingdom research response to move off the starting blocks at pace by utilizing pre-existing platforms. The increasing focus from funders on evaluating the outcomes and impact of research infrastructure investment requires both a reframing and progression of the current models in order to address the contribution of the underlying support infrastructure. The majority of current evaluation/outcome models focus on a "pipeline" approach using a methodology which follows the traditional research funding route with the addition of quantitative metrics. These models fail to embrace the complexity caused by the interplay of previous investment, the coalescing of project outputs from different funders, the underlying infrastructure investment, and the parallel development across different parts of the system. Research infrastructure is the underpinning foundation of a project-driven research system and requires long-term, sustained funding and capital investment to maintain scientific and technological expertise. Therefore, the short-term focus on quantitative metrics that are easy to collect and interpret and that can be assessed in a roughly 5-year funding cycle needs to be addressed. The significant level of investment in research infrastructure necessitates investment to develop bespoke methodologies that develop fit-for-purpose, longer-term/continual approach(es) to evaluation. Real-world research should reflect real-world evaluation and allow for the accrual of a narrative of value indicators that build a picture of the contribution of infrastructure to research outcomes. The linear approach is not fit for purpose, the research endeavour is a complex, twisted road, and the evaluation approach needs to embrace this complexity through the development of realist approaches and the rapidly evolving data ecosystem. This paper sets out methodological challenges and considers the need to develop bespoke methodological approaches to allow a richer assessment of impact, contribution, attribution, and evaluation of research infrastructure. This paper is the beginning of a conversation that invites the community to "take up the mantle" and tackle the complexity of real-world research translation and evaluation.

SUBMITTER: Zakaria S

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8371591 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:Research primates may undergo surgical procedures making effective pain management essential to ensure good animal welfare and unbiased scientific data. Adequate pain mitigation is dependent on whether veterinarians, technicians, researchers, and caregivers can recognize and assess pain, as well as the availability of efficacious therapeutics. A survey was conducted to evaluate primate veterinary approaches to pain assessment and alleviation, as well as expressed challenges for adequately managing primate pain. The survey (n = 93 respondents) collected information regarding institutional policies and procedures for pain recognition, methods used for pain relief, and perceived levels of confidence in primate pain assessment. Results indicated that 71% (n = 60) of respondents worked at institutions that were without formal experimental pain assessment policies. Pain assessment methods were consistent across respondents with the majority evaluating pain based on changes in general activity levels (100%, n = 86) and food consumption (97%, n = 84). Self-reported confidence in recognizing and managing pain ranged from slightly confident to highly confident, and there was a commonly expressed concern about the lack of objective pain assessment tools and science-based evidence regarding therapeutic recommendations of analgesics for research primates. These opinions correspond with significant gaps in the primate pain management literature, including limited specific pharmacokinetic data and efficacy testing for commonly used analgesics in research primate species as well as limited research on objective and specific measures of pain in research primates. These results demonstrate that there are inconsistencies in institutional policies and procedures surrounding pain management in research primates and a lack of objective pain assessment methods. Demonstrating the gaps and challenges in primate pain management can inform guideline development and suggest areas for future research.

Project description:BackgroundThe English National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network first established Hyperacute Stroke Research Centres (HSRCs) in 2010 to support multicentre hyperacute (< 9 h) and complex stroke research. We assessed the impact of this investment on research performance and patient outcomes in a post-hoc analysis of country-specific data from a large multicentre clinical trial.MethodsComparisons of baseline, outcome and trial metric data were made for participants recruited to the alteplase-dose arm of the international Enhanced Control of Hypertension and Thrombolysis Stroke study (ENCHANTED) at National Institute for Health Research Clinical Research Network HSRCs and non-HSRCs between June 2012 and October 2015.ResultsAmong 774 ENCHANTED United Kingdom participants (41% female; mean age 72 years), 502 (64.9%) were recruited from nine HSRCs and 272 (35.1%) from 24 non-HSRCs. HSRCs had higher monthly recruitment rates (median 1.5, interquartile interval 1.4-2.2 vs. 0.7, 0.5-1.3; p = 0.01) and shorter randomisation-to-treatment times (2.6 vs. 3.1 min; p = 0.01) compared to non-HSRCs. HSRC participants were younger and had milder stroke severity, but clinically important between-group differences in 90-day death or disability outcomes remained after adjustment for minimisation criteria and important baseline variables at randomisation, whether defined by ordinal modified Rankin scale score shift (adjusted OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.62-1.08; p = 0.15), scores 2 to 6 (adjusted OR 0.71, 95% CI 0.50-1.01; p = 0.05), or scores 3 to 6 (adjusted OR 0.82, 95% CI 0.57-1.17; p = 0.27). There was no significant difference in symptomatic intracerebral haemorrhage, nor heterogeneity in the comparative treatment effects between low- and standard-dose alteplase by HSRCs or non-HSRCs.ConclusionsInfrastructure investment in HSRCs was associated with improved research performance metrics, particularly recruitment and time to treatment with clinically important, though not statistically significant, improvements in patient outcomes.Trial registrationUnique identifier: NCT01422616 .

Dataset Information

Fundamental challenges in assessing the impact of research infrastructure.

Similar Datasets

OmicsDI is part of the ELIXIR infrastructure

Tweets