Search

Rationale, aims and objective: Substituting outpatient hospital care with primary care is seen as a solution to decrease unnecessary referrals to outpatient hospital care and decrease rising healthcare costs. This systematic review aimed to evaluate the effects on quality of care, health and costs outcomes of substituting outpatient hospital care with primary care-based interventions, which are performed by medical specialists in face-to-face consultations in a primary care setting. Method: The systematic review was performed using the PICO framework. Original papers in which the premise of the intervention was to substitute outpatient hospital care with primary care through the involvement of a medical specialist in a primary care setting were eligible. Results: A total of 14 papers were included. A substitution intervention in general practitioner (GP) practices was described in 11 papers, three described a joint consultation intervention in which GPs see patients together with a medical specialist. This study showed that substitution initiatives result mostly in favourable outcomes compared to outpatient hospital care. The initiatives resulted mostly in shorter waiting lists, shorter clinic waiting times and higher patient satisfaction. Costs for treating one extra patient seemed to be higher in the intervention settings. This was mainly caused by inefficient planning of consultation hours and lower patient numbers. Conclusions: Despite the fact that internationally a lot has been written about the importance of performing substitution interventions in which preventing unnecessary referrals to outpatient hospital care was the aim, only 14 papers were included. Future systematic reviews should focus on the effects on the Triple Aim of substitution initiatives in which other healthcare professions than medical specialists are involved along with new technologies, such as e-consults. Additionally, to gain more insight into the effects of substitution initiatives operating in a dynamic healthcare context, it is important to keep evaluating the interventions in a longitudinal study design. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Assess whether ChatGPT 4.0 is accurate enough to perform research evaluations on journal articles to automate this time-consuming task. Test the extent to which ChatGPT-4 can assess the quality of journal articles using a case study of the published scoring guidelines of the UK Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2021 to create a research evaluation ChatGPT. This was applied to 51 of my own articles and compared against my own quality judgements. ChatGPT-4 can produce plausible document summaries and quality evaluation rationales that match the REF criteria. Its overall scores have weak correlations with my self-evaluation scores of the same documents (averaging r=0.281 over 15 iterations, with 8 being statistically significantly different from 0). In contrast, the average scores from the 15 iterations produced a statistically significant positive correlation of 0.509. Thus, averaging scores from multiple ChatGPT-4 rounds seems more effective than individual scores. The positive correlation may be due to ChatGPT being able to extract the author's significance, rigour, and originality claims from inside each paper. If my weakest articles are removed, then the correlation with average scores (r=0.200) falls below statistical significance, suggesting that ChatGPT struggles to make fine-grained evaluations. The data is self-evaluations of a convenience sample of articles from one academic in one field. Overall, ChatGPT does not yet seem to be accurate enough to be trusted for any formal or informal research quality evaluation tasks. Research evaluators, including journal editors, should therefore take steps to control its use. This is the first published attempt at post-publication expert review accuracy testing for ChatGPT. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The use of bibliometric indicators would simplify research assessments. The 2014 Research Excellence Framework (REF) is a peer review assessment of UK universities, whose results can be taken as benchmarks for bibliometric indicators. In this study, we use the REF results to investigate whether the e p index and a top percentile of most cited papers could substitute for peer review. The probability that a random university's paper reaches a certain top percentile in the global distribution of papers is a power of the e p index, which can be calculated from the citation-based distribution of university's papers in global top percentiles. Making use of the e p index in each university and research area, we calculated the ratios between the percentage of 4-star-rated outputs in REF and the percentages of papers in global top percentiles. Then, we fixed the assessment percentile so that the mean ratio between these two indicators across universities is 1.0. This method was applied to four units of assessment in REF: Chemistry, Economics and Econometrics joined to Business and Management Studies, and Physics. Some relevant deviations from the 1.0 ratio could be explained by the evaluation procedure in REF or by the characteristics of the research field; other deviations need specific studies by experts in the research area. These results indicate that in many research areas the substitution of a top percentile indicator for peer review is possible. However, this substitution cannot be made straightforwardly; more research is needed to establish the conditions of the bibliometric assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose – This is a polemical paper challenging both the principle and practice of journal ranking. In recent years academics and their institutions have become obsessive about the star-ratings of the journals in which they publish. In the UK this is partly attributed to quinquennial reviews of university research performance though preoccupation with journal ratings has become an international phenomenon. The purpose of this paper is to examine the arguments for and against these ratings and argue that, on balance, they are having a damaging effect on the development of logistics as an academic discipline. Design/methodology/approach – The arguments advanced in the paper are partly substantiated by references to the literature on the ranking of journals and development of scientific research. A comparison is made of the rating of logistics publications in different journal ranking systems. The views expressed in the paper are also based on informal discussions with numerous academics in logistics and other fields, and long experience as a researcher, reviewer and journal editor. Findings – The ranking of journals gives university management a convenient method of assessing research performance across disciplines, though has several disadvantages. Among other things, it can skew the choice of research methodology, lengthen publication lead times, cause academics to be disloyal to the specialist journals in their field, favour theory over practical relevance and unfairly discriminate against relatively young disciplines such as logistics. Research evidence suggests that journal ratings are not a good proxy for the value and impact of an article. The paper aims to stimulate a debate on the pros and cons of journal rankings and encourage logistics academics to reflect on the impact of these rankings on their personal research plans and the wider development of the field. Research limitations/implications – The review of journal ranking systems is confined to three countries, the UK, Germany and Australia. The analysis of journal ranking was also limited to 11 publications with the word logistics or supply chain management. The results of this review and analysis, however, provide sufficient evidence to support the main arguments advanced in the paper. Practical implications – The paper asserts that the journal ranking system is encouraging a retreat into ivory towers where academics become more interested in impressing each other with their intellectual brilliance than in doing research that is of real value to the outside world. Originality/value – Many logistics academics are concerned about the situation and trends outlined in this paper, but find it very difficult to challenge the prevailing journal ranking orthodoxy. This paper may give them greater confidence to question the value of the journal ranking systems that are increasing dominating academic life. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: In this paper, we concentrate on the use of research assessment (RA) systems in universities in New Zealand (NZ) and the United Kingdom (UK). Primarily we focus on PBRF and REF, and explore differences between these systems on individual and systemic levels. We ask, these days, in what way(s) the systemic differences between PBRF and REF actually make a difference on how the two RA systems are experienced by academic staff. Design/methodology/approach: This research is exploratory and draws on 19 interviews in which accounting researchers from both countries offer reflections on their careers and how RA (systems) have influenced these careers. The stories they tell are classified by regarding RA in universities as a manifestation of the spectacle society, following Debord (1992) and Flyverbom and Reinecke (2017). Findings: Both UK and New Zealand academics concur that their research activities and views on research are very much shaped by journal rankings and citations. Among UK academics, there seems to be a greater critical attitude towards the benefits and drawbacks of REF, which may be related to the history of REF in their country. Relatively speaking, in New Zealand, individualism seems to have grown after the introduction of the PBRF, with little active pushback against the system. Cultural aspects may partially explain this outcome. Academics in both countries lament the lack of focus on practitioner issues that the increased significance of RA seems to have evoked. Research limitations/implications: This research is context-specific and may have limited applicability to other situations, academics or countries. Practical implications: RA and RA systems seem to be here to stay. However, as academics we can, and ought to, take responsibility to try to ensure that these systems reflect the future of accounting (research) we wish to create. It is certainly not mainly or solely up to upper management officials to set this in motion, as has occasionally been claimed in previous literature. Some of the academics who participated in this research actively sought to bring about a different future. Originality/value: This research provides a unique contextual analysis of accounting academics' perspectives and reactions to RA and RA systems and the impact these have had on their careers across two countries. In addition, the paper offers valuable critical reflections on the application of Debord's (1992) notion of the spectacle society in future accounting studies. We find more mixed and nuanced views on RA in academia than many previous studies have shown. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Introduction: Non-medical prescribing has the potential to deliver innovative healthcare within limited finances. However, uptake has been slow, and a proportion of non-medical prescribers do not use the qualification. This systematic review aimed to describe the facilitators and barriers to non-medical prescribing in the United Kingdom. Methods: The systematic review and thematic analysis included qualitative and mixed methods papers reporting facilitators and barriers to independent non-medical prescribing in the United Kingdom. The following databases were searched to identify relevant papers: AMED, ASSIA, BNI, CINAHL, EMBASE, ERIC, MEDLINE, Open Grey, Open access theses and dissertations, and Web of Science. Papers published between 2006 and March 2017 were included. Studies were quality assessed using a validated tool (QATSDD), then underwent thematic analysis. The protocol was registered with PROSPERO (CRD42015019786). Results: Of 3991 potentially relevant identified studies, 42 were eligible for inclusion. The studies were generally of moderate quality (83%), and most (71%) were published 2007–2012. The nursing profession dominated the studies (30/42). Thematic analysis identified three overarching themes: non-medical prescriber, human factors, and organisational aspects. Each theme consisted of several sub-themes; the four most highly mentioned were ‘medical professionals’, ‘area of competence’, ‘impact on time’ and ‘service’. Sub-themes were frequently interdependent on each other, having the potential to act as a barrier or facilitator depending on circumstances. Discussion: Addressing the identified themes and subthemes enables strategies to be developed to support and optimise non-medical prescribing. Further research is required to identify if similar themes are encountered by other non-medical prescribing groups than nurses and pharmacists. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Using the InCites tool of Thomson Reuters, this study compares normalized citation impact values calculated for China, Japan, France, Germany, United States, and the UK throughout the time period from 1981 to 2010. InCites offers a unique opportunity to study the normalized citation impacts of countries using (i) a long publication window (1981 to 2010), (ii) a differentiation in (broad or more narrow) subject areas, and (iii) allowing for the use of statistical procedures in order to obtain an insightful investigation of national citation trends across the years. Using four broad categories, our results show significantly increasing trends in citation impact values for France, the UK, and especially Germany across the last thirty years in all areas. The citation impact of papers from China is still at a relatively low level (mostly below the world average), but the country follows an increasing trend line. The USA exhibits a stable pattern of high citation impact values across the years. With small impact differences between the publication years, the US trend is increasing in engineering and technology but decreasing in medical and health sciences as well as in agricultural sciences. Similar to the USA, Japan follows increasing as well as decreasing trends in different subject areas, but the variability across the years is small. In most of the years, papers from Japan perform below or approximately at the world average in each subject area. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper considers the likely shape of the next UK Research Excellence Framework (REF). It explores some of the recommendations from the 2016 Stern Review (those concerned with ‘outputs’) and their envisaged impact on the exercise. Drawing on lessons learnt from the previous round of the REF, and some wider commentary, the paper considers some of the problems emergent from REF2014, whether they can be mitigated, and whether new problems might emerge in REF2021. Prominently, the issues of ‘burden’ and ‘gaming’ are explored. Although there are some grounds for optimism, much more detail will be needed before we can be reasonably confident about achieving a less burdensome and a more accurate evaluation of researchqualitywithin universities across the UK. [ABSTRACT FROM PUBLISHER]

Purpose – Analyses of the results of research assessment exercises (RAEs) carried out in the UK in 1996 and 2001 supported a simple hypothesis, that the grade awarded to a university department can be related to its level of activity in terms of, for example, number of research students, research studentships secured, research degrees awarded, research funded from external sources, and the profile of publications. The purpose of this paper is to consider the extent to which these relationships prevailed for the most recent RAE in 2008. Design/methodology/approach – Information from 157 departments from five subject areas was subjected to extensive correlation analysis and regression modelling, informed by the findings from analyses of previous RAEs. Findings – Although the information submitted by universities to RAE 2008 was the same as for previous RAEs, a different methodology was employed for assessing their performance. Establishing a relationship between the assessments of research quality of departments and measures of activity was more challenging than previously. Differences between subject areas were large and it was not possible to develop a single model applicable to the five subject areas. Practical implications – Despite the relationship with performance being much less obvious than for previous RAEs, activity levels are important to success, but in different ways in different subject areas. Originality/value – The paper indicates the extent to which expectations about the importance of key research-related activities, expressed as simple quantitative measures, are reflected in qualitative assessments of performance, given the increasing complexity and subtlety of the assessment process. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose -- The purpose of this paper is to encourage discussion about the potential role of metrics in research assessment. Design/methodology/approach -- The paper considers the results of the UK's 2014 Research Excellence Framework, and the potential of metrics to reduce the size of future exercises. Findings -- The paper suggests that a battery of non-robust metrics selected by the higher education institutions could support a greatly reduced peer-reviewed exercise. Practical implications -- Policy makers should reconsider the role of metrics in research assessment. Originality/value -- The paper provides an alternative vision of the role of metrics in research assessment, and will be of interest to policy makers, bibliometricians, and anyone interested in HEI research assessment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Physical inactivity has been identified as a leading risk factor for premature mortality globally, and adolescents, in particular, have low physical activity levels. Schools have been identified as a setting to tackle physical inactivity. Economic evidence of school-based physical activity programmes is limited, and the costs of these programmes are not always collected in full. This paper describes a micro-costing and cost-consequence analysis of the ‘Girls Active’ secondary school-based programme as part of a cluster randomised controlled trial (RCT). Micro-costing and cost-consequence analyses were conducted using bespoke cost diaries and questionnaires to collect programme delivery information. Outcomes for the cost-consequence analysis included health-related quality of life measured by the Child Health Utility-9D (CHU-9D), primary care General Practitioner (GP) and school-based (school nurse and school counsellor) service use as part of a cluster RCT of the ‘Girls Active’ programme. Overall, 1,752 secondary pupils were recruited and a complete case sample of 997 participants (Intervention n = 570, Control n = 427) was used for the cost-consequence analysis. The micro-costing analysis demonstrated that, depending upon how the programme was delivered, ‘Girls Active’ costs ranged from £1,054 (£2 per pupil, per school year) to £3,489 (£7 per pupil, per school year). The least costly option was to absorb ‘Girls Active’ strictly within curriculum hours. The analysis demonstrated no effect for the programme for the three main outcomes of interest (health-related quality of life, physical activity and service use).Micro-costing analyses demonstrated the costs of delivering the ‘Girls Active’ programme, addressing a gap in the United Kingdom (UK) literature regarding economic evidence from school-based physical activity programmes. This paper provides recommendations for those gathering cost and service use data in school settings to supplement validated and objective measures, furthering economic research in this field. Trial registration: -ISRCTN, . [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Collaborative research causes problems for research assessments because of the difficulty in fairly crediting its authors. Whilst splitting the rewards for an article amongst its authors has the greatest surface-level fairness, many important evaluations assign full credit to each author, irrespective of team size. The underlying rationales for this are labour reduction and the need to incentivise collaborative work because it is necessary to solve many important societal problems. This article assesses whether full counting changes results compared to fractional counting in the case of the UK's Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2021. For this assessment, fractional counting reduces the number of journal articles to as little as 10% of the full counting value, depending on the Unit of Assessment (UoA). Despite this large difference, allocating an overall grade point average (GPA) based on full counting or fractional counting gives results with a median Pearson correlation within UoAs of 0.98. The largest changes are for Archaeology (r=0.84) and Physics (r=0.88). There is a weak tendency for higher scoring institutions to lose from fractional counting, with the loss being statistically significant in 5 of the 34 UoAs. Thus, whilst the apparent over-weighting of contributions to collaboratively authored outputs does not seem too problematic from a fairness perspective overall, it may be worth examining in the few UoAs in which it makes the most difference. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The assessment of research activity in universities is now undertaken regularly in a number of countries, with resources then being allocated according to the results of those evaluations. Such an exercise (a Research Quality Framework – RQF) has recently been proposed for Australia. This paper suggests likely consequences of such an exercise for geography in Australian universities, given its current situation there, on the basis of experience with the Research Assessment Exercises undertaken in the UK since 1986. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: Patient and public involvement (PPI) is a requirement for UK health and social care research funding. Evidence for how best to implement PPI in research programmes, such as National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) Collaborations for Applied Health Research and Care (CLAHRCs), remains limited. This paper reports findings from an action research (AR) project called IMPRESS, which aims to strengthen PPI within CLAHRC East of England (EoE). IMPRESS combines AR with Normalisation Process Theory (NPT) to explore PPI within diverse case study projects, identifying actions to implement, test and refine to further embed PPI. Methods: We purposively selected CLAHRC EoE case study projects for in-depth analysis of PPI using NPT. Data were generated from project PPI documentation, semi-structured qualitative interviews with researchers and PPI contributors and focus groups. Transcripts and documents were subjected to abductive thematic analysis and triangulation within case. Systematic across case comparison of themes was undertaken with findings and implications refined through stakeholder consultation. Results: We interviewed 24 researchers and 13 PPI contributors and analysed 28 documents from 10 case studies. Three focus groups were held: two with researchers (n = 4 and n = 6) and one with PPI contributors (n = 5). Findings detail to what extent projects made sense of PPI, bought in to PPI, operationalised PPI and appraised it, thus identifying barriers and enablers to fully embedded PPI. Conclusion: Combining NPT with AR allows us to assess the embeddedness of PPI within projects and programme, to inform specific local action and report broader conceptual lessons for PPI knowledge and practice informing the development of an action framework for embedding PPI in research programmes. To embed PPI within similar programmes teams, professionals, disciplines and institutions should be recognised as variably networked into existing PPI support. Further focus and research is needed on sharing PPI learning and supporting innovation in PPI. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The accessibility of services within community pharmacies provides an ideal opportunity to manage minor ailments, yet over £1.1 billion is spent by the National Health Service (NHS) in the United Kingdom (UK) in managing minor ailments in high cost settings. There is a need to review the evidence base around clinical effectiveness of pharmacy-based management of minor ailments since the absence of such may lead to under-utilisation of pharmacy services and non-implementation of available pharmacy service models. This study aimed to systematically review the methodological approaches used to assess clinical outcomes of pharmacy-based management of minor ailments in the research literature. Methods: A systematic review was conducted to identify relevant literature using the following databases: Medline, EMBASE, CINAHL, IPA, CRD, CDSR, and Google Scholar from publication year 2000 onwards. Studies were included if they evaluated clinical outcomes of pharmacy-based management of any minor ailments, with or without a comparator setting such as Emergency Departments (EDs) or general practices. Screening and selection of titles, abstracts and full texts followed by data extraction and quality assessment (QA) was conducted. Paired researchers, from the team, reviewed papers using a protocol based on the Preferred Reporting Items for Systematic Review and Meta-Analysis Protocols (PRISMA-P). QA was undertaken using the Critical Appraisal Skills Programme (CASP). Reporting was conducted in accordance with PRISMA checklist and statements. Results: A total of 19 studies were included. The majority of studies were observational, conducted in community pharmacies, and did not use a comparator participant group nor a comparator setting. Interventions included counselling, medicines supply and provision of advice on the management of minor ailments. One study used the randomised controlled trial (RCT) design with majority of the study utilising observational design. A range of clinical outcomes including symptom severity, pattern, resolution, and quality of life were reported. Methods used for the assessment of clinical outcomes were, overall, poorly reported. This included a lack of information on the development and validation of the data collection tools and the timing of baseline and follow-up data collection. Adverse clinical outcomes data were collected by only seven studies. Conclusions: Currently, there are methodological limitations in the studies that have sought to assess clinical outcomes of pharmacy-based management of minor ailments. Such lack of high quality evidence may contribute to failings to shift care from high cost settings, such as EDs and general practices. Generation of high quality evidence is likely to influence public choices when seeking care for minor ailments. There is scope for development of a core outcomes set specific to minor ailments management and development of a validated methodology for measuring such outcomes in a research study. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In the UK and elsewhere, there has been considerable debate about the use of quantitative indicators, known as 'metrics', to judge research performance of individual academics and university departments. We carry out an analysis of the grades that are awarded to research grant applications to explore the extent to which such information can be used for this purpose. Our results suggest that the usefulness of these data is limited and also that similar important limitations are associated with other metrics such as those based on journal paper citation indices. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This paper presents a critical overview of the way in which higher education institutions (HEIs) in the UK have had their research activity subject to review. There have been six such reviews to date, the first two carried out by the Universities Grants Committee and, from 1992, by its replacement, the four UK higher education (HE) funding bodies (HE Funding Council for England, HE Funding Council for Wales, the Scottish HE Funding Council and the Department for Employment and Learning in Northern Ireland). The paper provides a broad outline of the key elements of the process, focusing on the two more recent research reviews and their impact on the subject of education, with the references providing specific detail for those interested in the minutiae of the reviews. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Purpose: There is a general inquisition regarding the monetary value of a research output, as a substantial amount of funding in modern academia is essentially awarded to good research presented in the form of journal articles, conferences papers, performances, compositions, exhibitions, books and book chapters etc., which, eventually leads to another question if the value varies across different disciplines. Answers to these questions will not only assist academics and researchers, but will also help higher education institutions (HEIs) make informed decisions in their administrative and research policies. Design and methodology: To examine both the questions, we applied the United Kingdom’s recently concluded national research assessment exercise known as the Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014 as a case study. All the data for this study is sourced from the openly available publications which arose from the digital repositories of REF’s results and HEFCE’s funding allocations. Findings: A world leading output earns between £7504 and £14,639 per year within the REF cycle, whereas an internationally excellent output earns between £1876 and £3659, varying according to their area of research. Secondly, an investigation into the impact rating of 25315 journal articles submitted in five areas of research by UK HEIs and their awarded funding revealed a linear relationship between the percentage of quartile-one journal publications and percentage of 4* outputs in Clinical Medicine, Physics and Psychology/Psychiatry/Neuroscience UoAs, and no relationship was found in the Classics and Anthropology/Development Studies UoAs, due to the fact that most publications in the latter two disciplines are not journal articles. Practical implications: The findings provide an indication of the monetary value of a research output, from the perspectives of government funding for research, and also what makes a good output, i.e. whether a relationship exists between good quality output and the source of its publication. The findings may also influence future REF submission strategies in HEIs and ascertain that the impact rating of the journals is not necessarily a reflection of the quality of research in every discipline, and this may have a significant influence on the future of scholarly communications in general. Originality: According to the author’s knowledge, this is the first time an investigation has estimated the monetary value of a good research output. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Geographers have long grappled with how their research can positively impact individuals, communities and society. Demonstrating research impact is an increasingly important aspect of academic life internationally. In this paper we argue that agendas for encouraging ‘impact’ would be well-served if impact through teaching was identified and stimulated more explicitly, and if academics better recognised and seized the opportunities that already exist for such impact. We take engagement between health geography and nurse education as an example of how social scientists could demonstrate research impact through inter-disciplinary involvement in the education of health care professionals, and specifically student nurses. We begin by showing how the UK's Research Excellence Framework (widely regarded as the key reference point for research performance management regimes internationally) has tended to produce an undervaluation of impact via education in many disciplines. A comprehensive overview of international scholarship at the intersection between geography and nursing is then presented. Here we trace three ‘waves of enquiry’ that have focused on research interactions before calling for a fourth focused on critical pedagogy. To illustrate the possibilities of this fourth wave, we sketch a case study that outlines how engagement with research around blood donation could help provide a foundation for critical pedagogy that challenges student nurses to practice reflexively, think geographically and act justly. Finally, we call for closer engagement between health geography and nurse education, by encouraging educators to translate, teach, and transfuse ideas and people between health geography and nurse education. In so doing, we argue that work at this interface can be mutually beneficial and demonstrate impact both within and beyond research assessment rubrics. Hence, our ideas are relevant beyond nurse education and geography insofar as this paper serves as an example of how reframing research impact can recover the importance of impact through education. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

In this commentary I focus on the timing and timeliness of Cosgrove and Jackson's (1987) 'New directions' piece (Area, 19, 95-101). The discussion is structured in two parts. First, I consider the coincidence (or not) between the emergence of new cultural geography and the establishment of official measurements of research quality in UK Higher Education -- an issue flagged for me by the contents of the Area issue in which 'New directions' appears. Second, the piece's timeliness resides in its nearly one-off rapprochement between social-ethnographic and historical-interpretative traditions in cultural geography. Beyond the rich and evident legacies of new cultural geography, my commentary concludes by noting again the comparative lack of attention paid today to the concept of 'culture'. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Research Excellence Framework (REF) follows a set of submission rules. Here we analyse whether the submission rules of the impact element arguably shaped the submission sizes of the submitting units – a group of academics researching on a specific subject area in higher education providers – to the REF in 2014. The number of impact case studies required was determined by the number of full-time equivalent (FTE) staff members submitted by the unit. We argue that units that did not have an extra impact case study or units' perception of lower quality of additional impact case study made some units to lower their submission sizes. We show that there were proportionately more submissions with a size just below the threshold FTE – a threshold used to identify the numbers of impact case studies – than those just above the threshold, suggesting that some units arguably decreased their size to return fewer impact studies. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The purpose of the Research Excellence Framework ( REF) is to judge the quality of research in the UK and on that basis to apportion to universities, in a transparent manner, differential shares in the UK's £1.6 billion pot of research funding. However, the funding process is anything but transparent! While the REF process was known years in advance and remained constant throughout the assessment exercise, the mechanisms for the subsequent award of quality-related research ( QR) funding in England were opaque and 'adjustable'. The financial outcomes were put in the public domain following publication of the REF outcomes, but the calculations still remain a 'black box' even for experienced university administrators. The funding factors were not revealed in advance and dramatic changes were made to the formula once the REF results were known. This paper explores the intricacies involved in university QR funding and looks at the correlations between it and various REF outcomes. It discusses the tactical implications for academics and university administrators, and whether simpler alternatives that are just as effective can be developed in time for the next iteration. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The 2008 Research Assessment Exercise in the United Kingdom provides a further opportunity to consider changing trends and patterns in retail research, following on a previous commentary in this journal. This comparison shows that pressures continue to mount and are impacting retail knowledge creation and dissemination practices, not least in terms of those engaged in retail research, the topics and approaches utilised, the publication tactics and strategies and thus the standing of retail research in the United Kingdom and its reputation internationally. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Earlier work inspired by a body of literature raised important questions about the workings of the UK's Research Excellence Framework (REF) and its predecessor the Research Assessment Framework (RAE), and noted the possible adverse outcomes of such processes. This paper builds on this by examining the findings of a small survey of social science academics. The survey identified concerns about the validity of the REF as a proxy for quality, and the role it has had in shaping patterns of research behaviour. There were also frequent concerns related to morale. Yet although responses tended to be negative, there was also a significant voice signalling the importance the REF plays in ensuring accountability and transparency in research, as well as a sense that the pressures that come with such processes are simply 'part and parcel' of academic life. The role of wider time-management factors, related to heavy teaching and administration burdens, was also signalled, and cited by some as overshadowing the pressures of REF. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Librarians support research in a wide variety of ways. However, librarians may not always receive recognition for the valuable contributions they make to the research life cycle or research environments. In higher education institutions (HEIs), librarians face competition from other professional support services in addition to external organizations and suppliers. This article provides an analysis of submissions made by HEIs to the UK's Research Excellence Framework (REF) in 2014 and demonstrates that the work of librarians is rarely acknowledged in substantive ways, particularly in STEM disciplines. It provides an overview of the multiple ways in which librarians contribute to research environments as well as how they can practically contribute to the REF 2021 submission process and other research assessment processes. Librarians have developed a wide range of responsive and innovative support services over the last decade and REF 2021 is demonstrated to be an opportunity for librarians to gain recognition for the important role they play in UK HEIs. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Acute abdominal pain (colic) is the most common reason for emergency veterinary treatment in the horse. Consolidation of data through a systematic review is important to inform evidence-based medicine and clinical guidelines, but there are currently no published systematic reviews on colic in the horse. The aim of this study was to identify, categorize and appraise the evidence on factors associated with increased risk of developing abdominal pain (colic) due to gastrointestinal disease in the adult horse. A scoping review was performed to identify and categorize evidence on all risk factors for colic. A systematic review of management-related risk factors was then performed following PRISMA guidelines. Both searches were conducted in Medline, CAB Abstracts and Web of Science databases, and publications were assessed against inclusion and exclusion criteria. For the scoping review, study and participant characteristics of included publications and key results were extracted and tabulated. For the systematic review, cohort, case-control or cross-sectional studies investigating acute abdominal pain in horses within two weeks of management changes were assessed. Study characteristics, participant characteristics and study results of included publications for the systematic review were extracted and tabulated. Included publications were appraised using the Joanna Briggs Institute Critical Appraisal Tools for cohort, case-control and cross-sectional studies. The scoping review search identified 3,756 publications. Fifty eight studies met final inclusion criteria, and 22 categories of risk factors were identified. These were grouped into three broad areas: horse-related factors, management-related factors and environment-related factors. The largest body of evidence related to management change. The systematic review of management change identified 410 publications: 14 met inclusion criteria for analysis. These consisted of one cohort, eight case-control and five cross-sectional studies. The studies were conducted between 1990–2008, and the majority of studies were located in the USA (8/14) or UK (3/14). The risk factors related to management change that were assessed were feed, carer, exercise, pasture, water and housing. The largest bodies of evidence for increased risk of colic associated with management change were changes in feed (5/14 publications) and recent change in housing (3/14). Most studies (8/14) did not meet the JBI criterion on confounding factors. There was marked heterogeneity of study methodologies and measures. This is the first study to use a combined scoping and systematic review to analyse evidence for modifiable risk factors for a common condition in the horse. It provides a comprehensive review that will be a key resource for researchers, veterinary practitioners and horse owners. It identified modifiable risk factors associated with an increased risk of colic which should be a key target for preventative health programmes. The findings from the critical appraisal were used to develop recommendations for future research to improve the quality of evidence-based veterinary medicine. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Objective: To evaluate the psychometric properties of the HIV Disability Questionnaire (HDQ) among people living with HIV (PLHIV) in London, United Kingdom (UK). Methods: This is a cross-sectional measurement study. We recruited and administered the self-reported HDQ, seven criterion measures, and a demographic questionnaire with adults living with HIV accessing HIV care. We determined median and interquartile ranges (IQR) for disability presence, severity and episodic scores (range 0–100). We calculated Cronbach’s alpha (α) Kuder-Richardson-20 (KR-20) statistics for disability and episodic scores respectively (internal consistency reliability), smallest detectable change (SDC) for each HDQ severity item and domain (precision), and tested 36 a priori hypotheses assessing correlations between HDQ and criterion scores (construct validity). Results: Of N = 243 participants, all were male, median age 40 years, 94% currently taking antiretroviral therapy, and 22% living with ≥2 concurrent health conditions. Median HDQ domain scores ranged from 0 (IQR: 0,7) (difficulties with day-to-day activities domain) to 27 (IQR: 14, 41) (uncertainty domain). Cronbach’s alpha for the HDQ severity scale ranged from 0.85 (95% Confidence Interval (CI): 0.80–0.90) in the cognitive domain to 0.93 (95%CI: 0.91–0.94) in the mental-emotional domain. The KR-20 statistic for the HDQ episodic scale ranged from 0.74 (95%CI: 0.66–0.83) in the cognitive domain to 0.91 (95%CI: 0.89–0.94) in the uncertainty domain. SDC ranged from 7.3–15.0 points on the HDQ severity scale for difficulties with day-to-day activities and cognitive symptoms domains, respectively. The majority of the construct validity hypotheses (n = 30/36, 83%) were confirmed. Conclusions: The HDQ possesses internal consistency reliability and construct validity with varied precision when administered to males living with HIV in London, UK. Clinicians and researchers may use the HDQ to measure the nature and extent of disability experienced by PLHIV in the UK, and to inform HIV service provision to address the health-related challenges among PLHIV. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Quantifying the value of investment in medical research can inform decision-making on the prioritisation of research programmes. Existing methodologies to estimate the rate of return of medical research are inappropriate for early-phase translational research due to censoring of health benefits and time lags. A strategy to improve the process of translational research for patient benefit has been initiated as part of the UK National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) investment in Biomedical Research Centres (BRCs) in England. By providing a platform for partnership between universities, NHS trusts and industry, successful BRCs should reduce time lags within translational research whilst also providing an impetus for local economic growth through industry collaboration. We present a novel contribution in the assessment of early-phase biomedical research by estimating the impact of the Oxford Biomedical Research Centre (OxBRC) on income and job creation following the initial NIHR investment. We adopt a macroeconomic assessment approach using Input-Output Analysis to estimate the value of medical research in terms of income and job creation during the early pathway towards translational biomedical research. Inter-industry linkages are assessed by building a model economy for the South East England region to estimate the return on investment of the OxBRC. The results from the input-output model estimate that the return on investment in biomedical research within the OxBRC is 46%. Each £1 invested in the OxBRC generates an additional £0.46 through income and job creation alone. Multiplicative employment effects following a marginal investment in the OxBRC of £98m during the period 2007-2017 result in an estimated additional 196 full time equivalent positions being created within the local economy on top of direct employment within OxBRC. Results from input-output analyses can be used to inform the prioritisation of biomedical research programmes when compared against national minimum thresholds of investment. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Access to reliable and timely information ensures that decision-makers can operate effectively. The motivations and challenges of parliamentarians and policy-makers in accessing evidence have been well documented in the policy literature. However, there has been little focus on research-providers. Understanding both the demand- and the supply-side of research engagement is imperative to enhancing impactful interactions. Here, we examine the broader experiences, motivations and challenges of UK-based research professionals engaging with research-users relevant to policy-making and scrutiny in the UK using a nationwide online questionnaire. The context of the survey partly involved contributing to the UK Evidence Information Service (EIS), a proposed rapid match-making service to facilitate interaction between parliamentary arenas that use evidence and research-providers. Our findings reveal, at least for this sub-sample who responded, that there are gender-related differences in policy-related experience, motivations, incentives and challenges for research professionals to contribute to evidence-informed decision-making through initiatives such as the EIS. Male and female participants were equally likely to have policy experience; however, males reported both significantly broader engagement with the research-users included in the survey and significantly higher levels of engagement with each research-user. Reported incentives for engagement included understanding what the evidence will be used for, guidance on style and content of contribution, and acknowledgement of contributions by the policymaker or elected official. Female participants were significantly more likely to select the guidance-related options. The main reported barrier was workload. We discuss how academia-policy engagement initiatives can best address these issues in ways that enhance the integration of research evidence with policy and practice across the UK. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Background: The Healthy Living Pharmacy (HLP) project, launched in England, UK in 2009 was a novel approach of introducing public health services within community pharmacy to tackle local health inequalities. A national roll-out followed a reported successful pilot; subsequent local evaluations ensued. Objectives: To summarise reported outcomes and investigate contextual factors that indicate the presence, absence and maturity of implementation determinants, thus offering useful lessons to stakeholders in implementing future initiatives to achieve successful outcomes. Methods: A systematic review was conducted to identify all publications reporting on the HLP project. All HLP articles and conference abstracts were considered for inclusion and were assessed for methodological quality. The Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research (CFIR) was utilised to identify potential implementation determinants reported. Each article was then analysed to identify reported economic, humanistic or clinical outcomes. Results: The review included six peer-reviewed journal articles and 12 conference abstracts. Joanna Briggs Institute Qualitative Assessment and Review Instrument indicated deficiencies in methodological quality. Through adoption of the CFIR framework, the implementation determinants relevant to the implementation of HLP into community pharmacy were identified. A resonating issue emerged in that the absence of adopting an evidence-based implementation process limited the ability to capture meaningful outcome data. This resulted in a lack of evidence to support sustainability and the failure to address many of the well cited barriers, e.g. lack of awareness amongst patients, public and other healthcare professionals, and weak support for future investment in resource for training and dissemination. Conclusions: Healthcare systems are increasingly called on to adopt evidence-based interventions that improve quality, control costs, and maximize value, thus offering opportunity to accelerate the implementation of clinical pharmacy services and programs aimed at improving patient care. Interventions, such as the HLP project require focused efforts on implementation and evaluation of those implementation efforts to produce effective and lasting changes in complex health care systems. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

Impactful academic research plays a stellar role in society, pressing to ask the question of how one measures the impact created by different areas of academic research. Measuring the societal, cultural, economic and scientific impact of research is currently the priority of the National Science Foundation, European Commission and several research funding agencies. The recently concluded United Kingdom’s national research quality exercise, the Research Excellence Framework (REF) 2014, which piloted impact assessment as part of the overall evaluation offers a lens to view how impact of research in different disciplines can be measured. Overall research quality was assessed through quality of outputs, ‘impact’ and research environment. We performed two studies using the REF 2014 as a case study. The first study on 363 Impact Case Studies (ICSs) submitted in 5 research areas (UoAs) reveals that, in general, the impact scores were constructed upon a combination of factors i.e. quantity of quartile-one (Q1) publications, quantity and value of grants/income, number of researchers stated in the ICSs, spin-offs created, discoveries/patents and presentation of esteem data, informing researchers/ academics of the factors to consider in order to achieve a better impact score in research impact assessments. However, there were differences among disciplines in terms of the role played by the factors in achieving their overall scores for the ICSs. The outcome of this study is thus a set of impact indicators, and their relationship with the overall score of impact of research in different disciplines as determined in REF2014, which would in the first instance provide some answers to impact measures that would be useful for researchers in different disciplines. The second study extracts the general themes of impact reported by universities by performing a word frequency analysis in all the ICSs submitted in the five chosen research areas, which were substantially varied owing to their fields. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

This article focuses on the assessment procedures of Norwegian PhD theses as viewed by external members of evaluation committees from three countries with different examination systems; the USA, the UK and Sweden. Their viewpoints give useful information not only on the pros and cons with the Norwegian system, but also on the strengths and weaknesses of their own national assessment systems. Various procedures of the four national PhD assessment systems are compared: the composition of the evaluation committee, the status of the thesis as published work, the pre-examination assessment, and the examination and defence. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

The Research Assessment Exercise (RAE), first established by the UK University Grants Committee in 1985 has been an important instrument in the modernisation of higher education in the UK. It is a means of rationalising the stratification of universities and the concentration of research resources, and of maximising research output. At the same time, while its operation remains substantially under professional control, it has had profound implications for the academic profession. The article explores these through analysing the workings of the RAE and its consequences for higher education institutions, departments and individuals. It suggests that the RAE has triggered substantial changes in the management of the research function in universities and in the culture of university departments. It has disturbed the web of relationship between the individual academic, the discipline, the department and the institution. It has impacted on individual professional identities and concepts of research responsibilities. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]