Dataset Information

Impacts of COVID-19 on clinical research in the UK: A multi-method qualitative case study.

ABSTRACT:

Background

Clinical research has been central to the global response to COVID-19, and the United Kingdom (UK), with its research system embedded within the National Health Service (NHS), has been singled out globally for the scale and speed of its COVID-19 research response. This paper explores the impacts of COVID-19 on clinical research in an NHS Trust and how the embedded research system was adapted and repurposed to support the COVID-19 response.

Methods and findings

Using a multi-method qualitative case study of a research-intensive NHS Trust in London UK, we collected data through a questionnaire (n = 170) and semi-structured interviews (n = 24) with research staff working in four areas: research governance; research leadership; research delivery; and patient and public involvement. We also observed key NHS Trust research prioritisation meetings (40 hours) and PPI activity (4.5 hours) and analysed documents produced by the Trust and national organisation relating to COVID-19 research. Data were analysed for a descriptive account of the Trust's COVID-19 research response and research staff's experiences. Data were then analysed thematically. Our analysis identifies three core themes: centralisation; pace of work; and new (temporary) work practices. By centralising research prioritisation at both national and Trust levels, halting non-COVID-19 research and redeploying research staff, an increased pace in the setup and delivery of COVID-19-related research was possible. National and Trust-level responses also led to widescale changes in working practices by adapting protocols and developing local processes to maintain and deliver research. These were effective practical solutions borne out of necessity and point to how the research system was able to adapt to the requirements of the pandemic.

Conclusion

The Trust and national COVID-19 response entailed a rapid large-scale reorganisation of research staff, research infrastructures and research priorities. The Trust's local processes that enabled them to enact national policy prioritising COVID-19 research worked well, especially in managing finite resources, and also demonstrate the importance and adaptability of the research workforce. Such findings are useful as we consider how to adapt our healthcare delivery and research practices both at the national and global level for the future. However, as the pandemic continues, research leaders and policymakers must also take into account the short and long term impact of COVID-19 prioritisation on non-COVID-19 health research and the toll of the emergency response on research staff.

SUBMITTER: Wyatt D

PROVIDER: S-EPMC8407556 | biostudies-literature |

REPOSITORIES: biostudies-literature

ACCESS DATA

Similar Datasets

Project description:IntroductionAs the world continues to grapple with the COVID-19 pandemic, emerging evidence suggests that individuals from ethnic minority backgrounds may be disproportionately affected. The United Kingdom Research study into Ethnicity And COVID-19 outcomes in Healthcare workers (UK-REACH) project has been initiated to generate rapid evidence on whether and why ethnicity affects COVID-19 diagnosis and clinical outcomes in healthcare workers (HCWs) in the UK, through five interlinked work packages/work streams, three of which form the basis of this protocol. The ethico-legal work (Work Package 3) aims to understand and address legal, ethical and acceptability issues around big data research; the HCWs' experiences study (Work Package 4) explores their work and personal experiences, perceptions of risk, support and coping mechanisms; the stakeholder engagement work (Work Package 5) aims to provide feedback and support with the formulation and dissemination of the project recommendations.Methods and analysisWork Package 3 has two different research strands: (A) desk-based doctrinal research; and (B) empirical qualitative research with key opinion leaders. For the empirical research, in-depth interviews will be conducted digitally and recorded with participants' permission. Recordings will be transcribed, coded and analysed using thematic analysis. In Work Package 4, online in-depth interviews and focus groups will be conducted with approximately 150 HCWs, from across the UK, and these will be recorded with participants' consent. The recordings will be transcribed and coded and data will be analysed using thematic analysis. Work Package 5 will achieve its objectives through regular group meetings and in-group discussions.Ethics and disseminationEthical approval has been received from the London-Brighton & Sussex Research Ethics Committee of the Health Research Authority (Ref No 20/HRA/4718). Results of the study will be published in open-access journals, and disseminated through conference presentations, project website, stakeholder organisations, media and scientific advisory groups.Trial registration numberISRCTN11811602.

Project description:BackgroundEthnographic approaches offer a method and a way of thinking about implementation. This manuscript applies a specific case study method to describe the impact of the longitudinal interplay between implementation stakeholders. Growing out of science and technology studies (STS) and drawing on the latent archaeological sensibilities implied by ethnographic methods, the STS case-study is a tool for implementors to use when a piece of material culture is an essential component of an innovation.MethodsWe conducted an ethnographic process evaluation of the clinical implementation of tele-critical care (Tele-CC) services in the Department of Veterans Affairs. We collected fieldnotes and conducted participant observation at virtual and in-person education and planning events (n = 101 h). At Go-Live and 6-months post-implementation, we conducted site visits to the Tele-CC hub and 3 partnered ICUs. We led semi-structured interviews with ICU staff at Go-Live (43 interviews with 65 participants) and with ICU and Tele-CC staff 6-months post-implementation (44 interviews with 67 participants). We used verification strategies, including methodological coherence, appropriate sampling, collecting and analyzing data concurrently, and thinking theoretically, to ensure the reliability and validity of our data collection and analysis process.ResultsThe STS case-study helped us realize that we must think differently about how a Tele-CC clinician could be noticed moving from communal to intimate space. To understand how perceptions of surveillance impacted staff acceptance, we mapped the materials through which surveillance came to matter in the stories staff told about cameras, buttons, chimes, motors, curtains, and doorbells.ConclusionsSTS case-studies contribute to the literature on longitudinal qualitive research (LQR) in implementation science, including pen portraits and periodic reflections. Anchored by the material, the heterogeneity of an STS case-study generates questions and encourages exploring differences. Begun early enough, the STS case-study method, like periodic reflections, can serve to iteratively inform data collection for researchers and implementors. The next step is to determine systematically how material culture can reveal implementation barriers and direct attention to potential solutions that address tacit, deeply rooted challenges to innovations in practice and technology.

Project description:ObjectiveTo investigate the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the research activity and working experience of clinical academics, with a focus on gender and ethnicity.DesignQualitative study based on interviews and audio/written diary data.SettingUK study within clinical academia.ParticipantsPurposive sample of 82 clinical academics working in medicine and dentistry across all career stages ranging from academic clinical fellows and doctoral candidates to professors.MethodsQualitative semistructured interviews (n=68) and audio diary data (n=30; including 16 participants who were also interviewed) collected over an 8-month period (January-September 2020), thematically analysed.Results20 of 30 (66.6%) audio diary contributors and 40 of 68 (58.8%) interview participants were female. Of the participants who disclosed ethnicity, 5 of 29 (17.2%) audio diary contributors and 19/66 (28.8%) interview participants identified as Black, Asian or another minority (BAME). Four major themes were identified in relation to the initial impact of COVID-19 on clinical academics: opportunities, barriers, personal characteristics and social identity, and fears and uncertainty. COVID-19 presented opportunities for new avenues of research. Barriers included access to resources to conduct research and the increasing teaching demands. One of the most prominent subthemes within 'personal characteristics' was that of the perceived negative impact of the pandemic on the work of female clinical academics. This was attributed to inequalities experienced in relation to childcare provision and research capacity. Participants described differential experiences based upon their gender and ethnicity, noting intersectional identities.ConclusionsWhile there have been some positives afforded to clinical academics, particularly for new avenues of research, COVID-19 has negatively impacted workload, future career intentions and mental health. BAME academics were particularly fearful due to the differential impact on health. Our study elucidates the direct and systemic discrimination that creates barriers to women's career trajectories in clinical academia. A flexible, strategic response that supports clinical academics in resuming their training and research is required. Interventions are needed to mitigate the potential lasting impact on capacity from the pandemic, and the potential for the loss of women from this valuable workforce.