A qualitative analysis of stakeholder experiences with Registered Reports Funding Partnerships

Lessons learnt for enhancing hospital resilience to pandemics: A qualitative analysis from Italy

The COVID-19 pandemic has outlined the need to strengthen the resilience of healthcare systems. It has cost millions of human lives and has had indirect health impacts too. Hospital buildings have undergone extensive modifications and adaptations to ensure infection control and prevention measures, and, as it is happened following past epidemics, the COVID-19 experience might change the design of hospital buildings in the future. This paper aims to capitalise on the knowledge developed by the stakeholders directly involved with the hospital response during the pandemic to generate new evidence that will enhance resilience of hospital buildings to pandemics. The research adopted qualitative research methods, namely literature review and interviews with Italian experts including doctors and facility managers to collect data which were analysed through a thematic analysis. The findings include the identification of new needs for hospital buildings and the related actions to be taken or already performed at hospital building and service level which are viable for long term implementation and are aimed at improving hospital resilience to pandemics. The results specify how to improve resilience by means of structural modifications (e.g. placing filter zones among different wards, ensuring the presence of airborne infection isolation rooms at least in the emergency departments), technological changes (e.g. oversizing capacity such as medical gases, information technology improvement for delivering healthcare services remotely), and operational measures (e.g. assessing the risk of infection before admission, dividing acute-care from low-care assets). The needs discussed in this paper substantiate the urge to renovate the Italian healthcare infrastructures and they can be considered useful elements of knowledge for enhancing hospital resilience to pandemics in the extended and in the post-COVID-19 era.

Systemic problems require systemic solutions: the need for coordination and cooperation to improve research quality

Various factors contribute to low reproducibility and replicability of scientific findings. Whilst not all of these are necessarily problematic, there is growing acceptance that there is room for improvement. Many sectoral organisations have a role to play in this, by refining incentives and rewards, promoting specific behaviours such as open research practices, and exploring innovations in grant funding and scientific publishing. However, given the systems nature of the challenge, real change will require the coordination of these efforts, and partnerships that ensure alignment of activity and interoperability of training. Efforts to improve research quality will require investment, in infrastructure, training, and research on research to ensure that innovative solutions are evidence-based, and potential unintended consequences are explored (and avoided). National structures (e.g., the planned UK Committee on Research Integrity) should focus on understanding the research system, identifying areas for improvement, and promoting research to understand the impact of novel approaches and innovations, in order to advise on how to maximise benefit and avoid harm.

The reproducibility debate is an opportunity, not a crisis

There are many factors that contribute to the reproducibility and replicability of scientific research. There is a need to understand the research ecosystem, and improvements will require combined efforts across all parts of this ecosystem. National structures can play an important role in coordinating these efforts, working collaboratively with researchers, institutions, funders, publishers, learned societies and other sectoral organisations, and providing a monitoring and reporting function. Whilst many new ways of working and emerging innovations hold a great deal of promise, it will be important to invest in meta-research activity to ensure that these approaches are evidence based, work as intended, and do not have unintended consequences. Addressing reproducibility will require working collaboratively across the research ecosystem to share best practice and to make the most effective use of resources. The UK Reproducibility Network (UKRN) brings together Local Networks of researchers, Institutions, and External Stakeholders (funders, publishers, learned societies and other sectoral organisations), to coordinate action on reproducibility and work to ensure the UK retains its place as a centre for world-leading research. This activity is coordinated by the UKRN Steering Group. We consider this structure as valuable, bringing together a range of voices at a range of levels to support the combined efforts required to enact change.

From grassroots to global: A blueprint for building a reproducibility network

Researchers, institutions, funders, and publishers are considering how to improve research culture and quality, but no single part of the research ecosystem can effect change on its own. The UK Reproducibility Network (UKRN) was established to facilitate the necessary coordination. Its experience can inform the establishment of like-minded networks around the world to drive positive change.

Evaluating Registered Reports Funding Partnerships: a feasibility study

Background: We studied a novel initiative – Registered Reports Funding Partnerships (RRFPs) – whereby research funders and journals partner in order to integrate their procedures for funding applications and Registered Reports submissions into one process. We investigated the feasibility of conducting a randomised controlled trial (RCT) of the impact of RRFPs on (1) research quality and (2) the efficiency of the research process, from funding to publication. Methods: We conducted 32 semi-structured interviews and follow-up questionnaires with stakeholders (funders, editors, authors, and reviewers) across six different RRFPs. Results: A RCT of RRFPs appears to be feasible in principle. The partnership concept seems worthwhile to pursue further and is adaptable to the needs of various funders and publishers, and across disciplines. Three primary outcomes of interest should be measurable, and participant randomisation could conceivably be done in a number of ways. In practice, however, the current volume of submissions going through existing partnerships is too low to support a full trial.   Conclusions: Although a RCT of RRFPs is conceptually feasible, it will only be possible if organisations are willing to form new partnerships, scale up existing ones, and incorporate a trial (i.e., randomisation) into these partnerships.