Search

Purpose Research suggests that 85 per cent of health research is avoidably wasted. The research and development management community has an important role in the research process and can contribute to improving the quality and value of research. Al-Shahi Salman et al. (2014) identified ways in which the community can contribute towards the reduction of research waste by increasing the efficiency of recruitment and retention of research participants, data management and data sharing in studies, and promoting the integration of research into practice. The paper aims to discuss these issues.Design/methodology/approach A project undertaken between May 2016 and May 2017 explored the perspective, and contribution, towards reducing research waste amongst the research and development management community. The study identified those categories of research waste the community felt were the most important and of the most value to address. It also examined spheres of influence and barriers to addressing research waste.Findings The most important and highest value categories of research waste to address were: implementation of research in practice, prioritisation of research, and design, conduct and analysis of research. The research and development management community’s level of influence in those areas was low. The categories where the community felt they had most influence, with the exception of design, conduct and analysis of research, were generally those they thought were less important and valuable, i.e. research taking place to time and target, public and patient involvement, and administration.Originality/value Waste in research is a significant area of waste in health care expenditure. This study has provided a better understanding of research waste for the research management community. The research and development management community can take a leadership role in formulating an action plan and identifying measures of success in reducing waste in research. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The different countries that death and dying researchers reside within often shape not only research agendas but also research methodologies. The United Kingdom and the United States are two examples of countries that share a common language and intellectual history but their discourses on death have been very different. These differences are partly explained through cultural practices, and also government funding of research, definitions of death and end-of-life planning education. In this article, we argue that early death scholarship in the United States impacted death research and outcomes in both the US and the UK, but that recent scholarship in both countries has caused the two countries to diverge in two major areas: (1) the methodological approaches to death studies and (2) the educational training of medical and hospice personnel in direct contact with the dying. We argue that in order for death studies to fully benefit from trans-Atlantic dialogue on death, both countries need to move towards a more integrated trans-disciplinary model. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Background: Government- and charity-funded medical research and private sector research and development (R&D) are widely held to be complements. The only attempts to measure this complementarity so far have used data from the United States of America and are inevitably increasingly out of date. This study estimates the magnitude of the effect of government and charity biomedical and health research expenditure in the United Kingdom (UK), separately and in total, on subsequent private pharmaceutical sector R&D expenditure in the UK.Methods: The results for this study are obtained by fitting an econometric vector error correction model (VECM) to time series for biomedical and health R&D expenditure in the UK for ten disease areas (including 'other') for the government, charity and private sectors. The VECM model describes the relationship between public (i.e. government and charities combined) sector expenditure, private sector expenditure and global pharmaceutical sales as a combination of a long-term equilibrium and short-term movements.Results: There is a statistically significant complementary relationship between public biomedical and health research expenditure and private pharmaceutical R&D expenditure. A 1% increase in public sector expenditure is associated in the best-fit model with a 0.81% increase in private sector expenditure. Sensitivity analysis produces a similar and statistically significant result with a slightly smaller positive elasticity of 0.68. Overall, every additional £1 of public research expenditure is associated with an additional £0.83-£1.07 of private sector R&D spend in the UK; 44% of that additional private sector expenditure occurs within 1 year, with the remainder accumulating over decades. This spillover effect implies a real annual rate of return (in terms of economic impact) to public biomedical and health research in the UK of 15-18%. When combined with previous estimates of the health gain that results from public medical research in cancer and cardiovascular disease, the total rate of return would be around 24-28%.Conclusion: Overall, this suggests that government and charity funded research in the UK crowds in additional private sector R&D in the UK. The implied historical returns from UK government and charity funded investment in medical research in the UK compare favourably with the rates of return achieved on investments in the rest of the UK economy and are greatly in excess of the 3.5% real annual rate of return required by the UK government to public investments generally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article offers the author's insights regarding the effects of impact evaluation practices on academics in Great Britain. He mentions that impact agenda provides strong incentives to deliver change in highly charged political situations and encourages to perform relevance. He notes that the 2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF) in Great Britain will assess the social and economic impact of research.

Abstract: Differences in the mean, spread and skewness of cost data collected from different countries present problems for analysis and interpretation. Here we develop generalised linear multilevel models to estimate the effects of patient and national characteristics on costs. Using gamma distributions and multiplicative effects for patient characteristics fitted the data better than models which assumed normal distributions or estimated additive effects. A multilevel gamma model is employed to allow for heterogeneity in the effects of patient case-mix across centres. Analysis of multinational cost data must recognise differences in mean, spread and skewness across centres, as well as the data's hierarchical structure. [Copyright &y& Elsevier]

In this article simulations of four different fiscal policy measures are compared using four of the main models of the UK economy, which are publicly available. Policy makers, lobbyists and economic analysts frequently require simulations of the effects of various policy measures. Until the advent of the ESRC Macroeconomic Modeling Bureau most work involved the simulation of different hypotheses under various conditions on the same model, as access to a wide range of models was extremely difficult to arrange. There were a few co-operative simulations by the various teams, Laury et al. (1978), for example, but the independent analyst could not hope to perform this work unaided, in part because of the need to learn all the different sets of modeling software, to get access to the various sites, let alone learn how to use the models and understand their various difficulties. The founding of the Warwick Bureau has altered all this and their annual reviews (Wallis, et al., 1985, 1986) have provided common documentation of the main published UK models and a careful analysis of their relative properties. Even more important from the point of view of the practitioner the models can all be run at Warwick using remote access and a common set of software. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the results of the 2008 Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), that is used to measure the quality of academic research in Great Britain. The RAE is used to calculate funding for research. More than half of the research analyzed was graded as "internationally excellent," including research from Oxford and Cambridge University. A large improvement was seen in the areas of medicine and life sciences, placing Great Britain ahead of Europe and behind the U.S. The REA drives improvement by encouraging schools to evaluate its systems, restructure and retain high quality researchers.

Introduction: An impactful clinical trial will have real-life benefits for patients and society beyond the academic environment. This study analyses case studies of cancer trials to understand how impact is evidenced for cancer trials and how impact evaluation can be more routinely adopted and improved.Methods: The United Kingdom (UK) Government allocates research funding to higher-education institutions based on an assessment of the institutions' previous research efforts, in an exercise known as the Research Excellence Framework (REF). In addition to each institution's journal publications and research environment, for the first time in 2014, allocation of funding was also dependent on an evaluation of the wider, societal impact of research conducted. In the REF2014, impact assessment was performed by evaluation of impact case studies. In this study, case studies (n = 6637) submitted by institutions for the REF2014 were accessed and those focussing on cancer trials were identified. Manual content analysis was then used to assess the characteristics of the cancer trials discussed in the case studies, the impact described and the methods used by institutions to demonstrate impact.Results: Forty-six case studies describing 106 individual cancer trials were identified. The majority were phase III randomised controlled trials and those recruiting patients with breast cancer. A list of indicators of cancer trial impact was generated using the previous literature and developed inductively using these case studies. The most common impact from a cancer trial identified in the case studies was on policy, in particular citation of trial findings in clinical guidelines. Impact on health outcomes and the economy were less frequent and health outcomes were often predicted rather than evidenced. There were few descriptions identified of trialists making efforts to maximise trial impact.Discussion: Cancer trial impact narratives for the next REF assessment exercise in 2021 can be improved by evidencing actual rather than predicted Impact, with a clearer identification of the beneficiaries of cancer trials and the processes through which trial results are used. Clarification of the individuals responsible for performing impact evaluations of cancer trials and the provision of resources to do so needs to be addressed if impact evaluation is to be sustainable. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The article discusses the reorganization of government funding of research in Great Britain within the agency UK Research and Innovation (UKRI). Topics include grants to be offered by disciplinary councils within UKRI, the economic impacts of research funding by the agency, and the appointment of Mark Walport as head of the UKRI.

The article discusses world science news. Topics include an increase in science funding for capital projects incorporated in Great Britain's 2011-2012 government budget, reported growth in the population of adult tigers in India, and the collaboration of the French government and oceanographers for continued searching for the remains of downed Air France Flight 447 using submersible vehicles off the northeast coast of Brazil .

The article reflects on a report authored by administrative law expert Stephen Sedley concerning the failure of the British government to provide a publicly available independent and government-commissioned research about government policy making in an accessible and timely manner.

This article assesses investor uncertainty regarding the future of the pharmaceutical research and development (R&D) process in Great Britain. The prominence of R&D in the economy of Great Britain is notes, but the possibility of divestment following the reform of pharmaceutical pricing policies is noted. The possible investment outlooks of companies including AstraZeneca, GlaxoSmithKline, Pfizer, and Merck are discussed.

Reports the recommendation of the Royal Societies of London and Edinburgh that Scottish research continue to be funded through British research councils. Expected establishment of a distinct Scottish parliament and executive in May, 1999; Concern that a fragmentation of funding will hurt Scottish science; Possible responses from Scottish political parties to the report; Other recommendations.

Details the regret expressed by the science minister of Great Britain's opposition Conservative Party for cuts to science funding while the Conservatives were still in power. Factors that will be considered by the party; Terms of the spending review of the party.

Discusses the December 7, 1999 announcement by Great Britain's's Trade Secretary Stephen Byers of a multi-million dollar funding package to be given to university science research.

Reports the increased funds the British government intends to make available for scientific research over the next three years. Three aspects of the increased funding; Emphasis upon life sciences; Danger of decline in the physical sciences; Situations among various scientific disciplines.

Reports that the British government plans to spend an extra 300 million pounds over the next three years to support university research. Other sources of funding; Retention of the dual support system; Reduction in the autonomy of schools to spend research funds; Concerns about funds for facilities; Stress on the life sciences.

Highlights the statistics, which show that research income per full-time academic scientist in Britain has trebled in cash terms over the past ten years. Fall in public investment; Information on unemployment data.