Is bureaucracy being busted in research ethics and governance for health services research in the UK? Experiences and perspectives reported by stakeholders through an online survey

Author:

Snooks Helen,Khanom Ashrafunnesa,Ballo Rokia,Bower Peter,Checkland Katherine,Ellins Jo,Ford Gary A,Locock Louise,Walshe Kieran

Abstract

Abstract Background It has long been noted that the chain from identification of need (research gap) to impact in the real world is both long and tortuous. This study aimed to contribute evidence about research ethics and governance arrangements and processes in the UK with a focus on: what works well; problems; impacts on delivery; and potential improvements. Methods Online questionnaire widely distributed 20th May 2021, with request to forward to other interested parties. The survey closed on 18th June 2021. Questionnaire included closed and open questions related to demographics, role, study objectives. Results Responses were received from 252 respondents, 68% based in universities 25% in the NHS. Research methods used by respondents included interviews/focus groups (64%); surveys/questionnaires (63%); and experimental/quasi experimental (57%). Respondents reported that participants in the research they conducted most commonly included: patients (91%); NHS staff (64%) and public (50%). Aspects of research ethics and governance reported to work well were: online centralised systems; confidence in rigorous, respected systems; and helpful staff. Problems with workload, frustration and delays were reported, related to overly bureaucratic, unclear, repetitive, inflexible and inconsistent processes. Disproportionality of requirements for low-risk studies was raised across all areas, with systems reported to be risk averse, defensive and taking little account of the risks associated with delaying or deterring research. Some requirements were reported to have unintended effects on inclusion and diversity, particularly impacting Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) and engagement processes. Existing processes and requirements were reported to cause stress and demoralisation, particularly as many researchers are employed on fixed term contracts. High negative impacts on research delivery were reported, in terms of timescales for completing studies, discouraging research particularly for clinicians and students, quality of outputs and costs. Suggested improvements related to system level changes / overall approach and specific refinements to existing processes. Conclusions Consultation with those involved in Health Services Research in the UK revealed a picture of overwhelming and increasing bureaucracy, delays, costs and demoralisation related to gaining the approvals necessary to conduct research in the NHS. Suggestions for improvement across all three areas focused on reducing duplication and unnecessary paperwork/form filling and reaching a better balance between risks of harm through research and harms which occur because research to inform practice is delayed or deterred.

Publisher

Springer Science and Business Media LLC

Subject

Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health

Reference17 articles.

1. Kristensen N, Nymann C, Konradsen H. Implementing research results in clinical practice- the experiences of healthcare professionals. BMC Health Serv Res 2016; 16–48.

2. Hanney SR, Castle-Clarke S, Grant J, Guthrie S, Henshall C, et al. How long does biomedical research take? Studying the time taken between biomedical and health research and its translation into products, policy and practice. Health Res Policy Syst. 2015;13:1–18.

3. Tickel A. 2022 Independent Review of Research Bureaucracy – Interim Report (https://assets.publishing.service.gov.uk/government/uploads/system/uploads/attachment_data/file/1046070/independent-review-of-research-bureaucracy-interim-report.pdf) accessed 27.06.2022.

4. National Institute for Health and Care Research. 2020 (https://www.nihr.ac.uk/news/nihr-launches-new-centre-for-engagement-and-dissemination/24576) accessed 22.09.2022.

5. Rand Corporation. 2022 (https://www.rand.org/randeurope/research/projects/brace-nihr-rapid-service-evaluation-centre.html) accessed 23.09.2022.

同舟云学术

1.学者识别学者识别

2.学术分析学术分析

3.人才评估人才评估

"同舟云学术"是以全球学者为主线,采集、加工和组织学术论文而形成的新型学术文献查询和分析系统,可以对全球学者进行文献检索和人才价值评估。用户可以通过关注某些学科领域的顶尖人物而持续追踪该领域的学科进展和研究前沿。经过近期的数据扩容,当前同舟云学术共收录了国内外主流学术期刊6万余种,收集的期刊论文及会议论文总量共计约1.5亿篇,并以每天添加12000余篇中外论文的速度递增。我们也可以为用户提供个性化、定制化的学者数据。欢迎来电咨询!咨询电话:010-8811{复制后删除}0370

www.globalauthorid.com

TOP

Copyright © 2019-2024 北京同舟云网络信息技术有限公司
京公网安备11010802033243号  京ICP备18003416号-3