1,720,964 research outputs found
Palliative and End of Life Care Research, Marie Curie and NIHR portfolio (2011-2018/19)
No full textThis report and associated data set aims to better understand the joint palliative and end of life care research portfolio of the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) and Marie Curie. The portfolio analysis brings together data from two UK-based research funders and is intended to inform ongoing strategic efforts to address gaps in the current evidence base.
The need for palliative care has been conservatively estimated to be between 69 and 90% of all deaths in high-income countries (Murtagh, 2014; Fantoni et. al., 2023). Yet, palliative and end of life care has been shown to be one of the lowest funded areas of healthcare research in the UK. The UK Clinical Research Collaboration (UKCRC) Health Research
Classification System (HRCS) 2018 dataset shows that only 0.21% of all non-commercial health-related project and programme research funding is spent on research focusing on palliative and end of life care (UKCRC, 2020). This portfolio analysis draws upon two data sources: a publicly available dataset of health-related research grants or awards active in 2018 (UKCRC, 2020) and created a new dataset (https://nihr.opendatasoft.com/explore/dataset/palliative-and-end-of-life-care/table/) of related research grants and awards from NIHR and Marie Curie (2011 – 2018/19). Analysis found that:
In 2018, NIHR was the largest funder of palliative and end of life care research in the UK (46%), followed by Marie Curie as the second-largest funder overall (34%) and the largest charitable funder.
The majority of NIHR and Marie Curie awards were projects, with relatively few personal awards.
There was variation in investment across the UK, with host organisations located in Northern Ireland and the South West of England receiving least funding, followed by the West and East Midlands.
Most awards were associated with ‘generic health relevance’ rather than a particular disease or condition. Where specific conditions were addressed, most awards concentrated on care for people with cancer, followed by neurological (mostly dementia) and respiratory conditions. Only a small number of awards addressed frailty, multimorbidity, Stroke, Oral/Gastrointestinal, Renal, Urogenital and Cardiovascular conditions, or Mental Health.
Apart from age, there was very little research addressing relevant palliative and end of life care research questions with respect to protected characteristics.
This analysis can be used by funders and researchers to continue to support efforts to fill gaps in the evidence base, and in response both funders have issued further calls for research.</span
"Everything is harder" but "the spirit of science is still there": understanding how the new UK-EU relationship affects global collaboration in cancer research
No full textUnderstanding research culture: A scoping review
No full textBackground: The crisis in research culture is well documented but there is still a tendency for quantity over quality, unhealthy competitive environments, and assessment based on publications, journal prestige and funding. Research institutions need to assess their own practices to promote and advocate for change in the current research ecosystem. To build an understanding of research culture and institution’s current practice, we conducted a review to address the questions ‘What does the evidence say about the ‘problem’ with ‘poor’ research culture, what are the benefits of ‘good’ research culture, and what does ‘good’ look like?Aims: To examine the peer-reviewed and grey literature to explore the interplay between research culture, open research, career paths, recognition and rewards, and equality, diversity and inclusion, as part of a larger programme of activity at the University of Southampton.Methods: A scoping review was undertaken. Six databases were searched along with grey literature. Eligible literature had relevance to academic research institutions, addressed research culture, and were published between January 2017 to May 2022. Evidence were mapped and themed to specific categories. The search strategy, screening and analysis took place between April-May 2022. Results:1666 titles and abstracts, and 924 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 254 articles met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. A purposive sampling of relevant websites was drawn from to complement the review. Key areas for consideration were identified across the four themes of job security, wellbeing and equality of opportunity, teamwork and interdisciplinary, and research quality and accountability. Conclusions: There are opportunities for research institutions to improve their own practice, however institutional solutions cannot act in isolation. Research institutions and research funders need to work together to build a more sustainable and inclusive research culture that is diverse in nature and supports individuals’ well-being, career progression and performance.<br/
Supplementary materials for ”everything’s harder” but “the spirit of science is still there”: understanding how the new UK-EU relationship affects global collaboration in cancer research
No full textA scoping review on what constitutes a good research culture
Full text linkBackground: the crisis in research culture is well documented, covering issues such as a tendency for quantity over quality, unhealthy competitive environments, and assessment based on publications, journal prestige and funding. In response, research institutions need to assess their own practices to promote and advocate for change in the current research ecosystem. The purpose of the scoping review was to explore ‘What does the evidence say about the ‘problem’ with ‘poor’ research culture, what are the benefits of ‘good’ research culture, and what does ‘good’ look like?’Aims: to examine the peer-reviewed and grey literature to explore the interplay between research culture, open research, career paths, recognition and rewards, and equality, diversity, and inclusion, as part of a larger programme of activity for a research institution.Methods: a scoping review was undertaken. Six databases were searched along with grey literature. Eligible literature had relevance to academic research institutions, addressed research culture, and were published between January 2017 to May 2022. Evidence was mapped and themed to specific categories. The search strategy, screening and analysis took place between April-May 2022.Results: 1666 titles and abstracts, and 924 full text articles were assessed for eligibility. Of these, 253 articles met the eligibility criteria for inclusion. A purposive sampling of relevant websites was drawn from to complement the review, resulting in 102 records included in the review. Key areas for consideration were identified across the four themes of job security, wellbeing and equality of opportunity, teamwork and interdisciplinary, and research quality and accountability.Conclusions: there are opportunities for research institutions to improve their own practice, however institutional solutions cannot act in isolation. Research institutions and research funders need to work together to build a more sustainable and inclusive research culture that is diverse in nature and supports individuals’ well-being, career progression and performanc
The All.Can Cancer Efficiency Metrics Study: A collaborative policy research project to identify a standard set of metrics to measure cancer care 'efficiency'.
No full textPolicy research report for All.Can International by University of Southampton in collaboration with Health Value Alliance
Researchers’ perspective of real-world impact from UK public health research: A qualitative study
No full textResearch funded by the National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research Programme is being undertaken in a complex system which brings opportunities and challenges for researchers to maximise the impact of their research. This study seeks to better understand the facilitators, challenges and barriers to research impact and knowledge mobilisation from the perspective of UK public health researchers. A qualitative study using semi-structured interviews, informed by the Payback Framework, with public health researchers who held a research award with the National Institute for Health Research Public Health Research programme up to March 2017 was conducted. Following a thematic analysis, three strongly interlinked themes were extracted from the data and three key factors were highlighted as important for facilitating knowledge mobilisation and impact in UK public health research: (1) Public health researcher’s perception of the purpose of the research (2) Approaches to undertaking Knowledge mobilisation activities (3) The complex nature of public health research in the wider research context. These have been reflected onto the Payback framework. Public health researchers can maximise the likelihood for impact by being aware of the context in which they are undertaking research, using different methods, and employing several strategies to take advantage of opportunities. There is a need to support researchers with knowledge mobilisation activities and for funders to identify their expectations of the impact resulting from research. Our findings have relevance to public health researchers and funders interested in increasing the benefit that research brings to society
Going Beyond Counting First Authors in Author Co-citation Analysis
Full text linkThe present study examines one of the fundamental aspects of author co-citation analysis (ACA) - the way co-citation
counts are defined. Co-citation counting provides the data on which all subsequent statistical analyses and mappings
are based, and we compare ACA results based on two different types of co-citation counting - the traditional type that
only counts the first one among a cited work's authors on the one hand and a non-traditional type that takes into
account the first 5 authors of a cited work on the other hand. Results indicate that the picture produced through this non-traditional author co-citation counting contains more coherent author groups and is therefore considerably clearer. However, this picture represents fewer specialties in the research field being studied than that produced through the traditional first-author co-citation counting when the same number of top-ranked authors is selected and analyzed. Reasons for these effects are discussed
Variations on the Author
Full text link“Variations on the Author” discusses two of Eduardo Coutinho’s recent films (Um Dia na Vida, from 2010, and Últimas Conversas, posthumously released in 2015) and their contribution to the general question of documentary authorship. The director’s filmography is characterized by a consistent yet self-effacing form of authorial self-inscription: Coutinho often features as an interviewer that rather than express opinions propels discourses; an interviewer that is good at listening. This mode of self-inscription characterizes him as an author who is not expressive but who is nonetheless markedly present on the screen. In Um Dia na Vida, however, Coutinho is completely absent form the image, while Últimas Conversas, on the contrary, includes a confessional prologue that moves the director from the margins to the center of his films. This article examines the ways in which these works stand out in the filmography of a director who offers new insights into the notion of cinematic authorship
- …
