Decision-making approaches used by UK and international health funding organisations for allocating research funds: A survey of current practice

Online survey exploring researcher experiences of research funding processes in the UK: the effort and burden of applying for funding and fulfilling reporting requirements

OBJECTIVE

To explore researchers' experiences of funding processes, the effort and burden involved in applying for funding, obtaining funding and/or fulfilling reporting requirements with a UK health and social care research funder.

DESIGN/SETTING

A cross-sectional online survey study with open (free-text) and closed questions (August to November 2021).

PARTICIPANTS

Researchers with experience of applying for/obtaining funding and/or experience of fulfilling reporting requirements for UK health and social care research funded between January 2018 and June 2021.

RESULTS

The survey was completed by 182 researchers, of which 176 had experience with applying for/obtaining funding, and 143 had experience with fulfilling reporting requirements during the timeframe. The majority of the 176 respondents (58%) completed between 7 and 13 key processes in order to submit an application and 69% felt that it was critically important to undertake these key processes. Respondents (n=143) reported submitting an average of 17 reports as part of research monitoring to a range of organisations (eg, funders, Higher Education Institutions). However, only 33% of respondents felt it was critically important to provide the requested reporting information to the different organisations. Thematic analysis of free-text questions on application and reporting identified themes relating to process inefficiencies including streamlining and alignment of systems, lack of understanding of processes including a need for improved communication and feedback from organisations with clear explanations about what information is needed, when and why, the support required by respondents and the time, effort and impact on workload and well-being.

CONCLUSIONS

Through this study, we were able to identify funding processes that are considered by some to be effortful, but necessary, as well as those that were perceived as unnecessary, complex and repetitive, and may waste some researchers time and effort and impact on well-being. Possible solutions to increase efficiency and enhance value in these processes were identified.

An in-depth exploration of researcher experiences of time and effort involved in health and social care research funding in the UK: The need for changes

The need to reform the way in which research is undertaken is clear, with reducing research bureaucracy and waste at the forefront of this issue for the UK government, funding organisations, higher education institutions and wider research community. The aim of this study was to describe researchers' experiences of the time, effort and burden involved in funding processes-namely applying for research funding and fulfilling reporting requirements. This was an in-depth qualitative study using semi-structured interviews with researchers who had experience applying for funding and/or completing reporting requirements for a UK health and social care research funder between January 2018 and June 2021. Following thematic analysis, five key themes were identified describing researcher experiences of key issues around time, efforts and burden associated with funding processes. These themes encompassed (1) issues with the current funding model for health and social care research, (2) time and effort involved in funding processes, (3) the need for a streamlined end-to-end process, (4) implications for work-life balance, and (5) addressing the need for better support and communication. The findings from this study describe researcher experiences of tasks in the research pathway that currently take considerable time and effort. It was clear that whilst some of this time and effort is considered necessary, some is exacerbated by inefficient and ineffective processes, such as perceived under-funding of research or lack of clarity with regards to funder expectations. This in turn contributes to unnecessary researcher burden, research waste and negative research culture. Better investment in health and social care research and in the researchers themselves who design and deliver the research, alongside improvements in transparency, streamlining and research support could ensure a more positive research culture, and improve the quality of funded research.

National Investment Framework for Revitalizing the R&D Collaborative Ecosystem of Sustainable Smart Agriculture

Demographic, economic, and environmental issues, including climate change events, aging population, growing urban-rural disparity, and the COVID-19 pandemic, contribute to vulnerabilities in agricultural production and food systems. South Korea has designated smart agriculture as a national strategic investment, expanding investment in research and development (R&D) to develop and commercialize convergence technologies, thus extending sustainable smart agriculture and strengthening global competitiveness. Hence, this study probes the status of smart agricultural R&D investment from the perspectives of public funds, research areas, technologies, regions, organizations, and stakeholders. It examines 5646 public R&D projects worth USD 1408.5 million on smart agriculture in 17 regions and eight technology clusters from 2015 to 2021. Further, it proposes a pool of potential collaborative networks via a case study of strawberry, a representative veritable crop inspiring smart agriculture, to demonstrate the study framework’s usefulness in promoting smart agriculture and establishing a sustainable R&D collaboration ecosystem. The proposed framework, accordingly, allows stakeholders to understand and monitor the status of R&D investment from various perspectives. Moreover, given the insight into the tasks belonging to technical areas and regions that require sustainable cooperation in smart agriculture, central and local governments develop policies to reinforce sustainable smart-farming models.

Public R&D Projects-Based Investment and Collaboration Framework for an Overarching South Korean National Strategy of Personalized Medicine

Since the South Korean government designated personalized medicine (PM) as a national strategic task in 2016, it has spared no investment to achieve its goals, which were recently accelerated by the COVID-19 pandemic. This study analyzed investment trends in 17 regions and eight technology clusters related to PM, consisting of 5727 public R&D projects worth USD 148.5 million, from 2015 to 2020. We also illustrated the level of investment for different PM-related technology clusters in each region; various research organizations explicitly verified comparable innovation capabilities for all eight technology fields in 17 regions, showing individual differences in technology areas per region. Our framework provided information to allow implementation of two goals: administering successful PM and improving regional equality in public health and healthcare according to technical and organizational levels. This study empirically demonstrates that it can provide a precise overarching innovation scheme with regional, technical, and organizational dimensions to establish collaboration among different stakeholders, thereby creating a foundation for an overarching national PM strategy.

Identification and comparison of key criteria of feedback of funding decisions: mixed-methods analysis of funder and applicant perspectives

OBJECTIVE

This study investigated the content, quality and value of feedback given to applicants who applied to one of four research programmes in the UK funded (or jointly funded) by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR).

METHODS

A mixed-method phased approach was conducted using document analysis and an online survey. Phase 1 examined 114 NIHR applicant feedback documents comprised written feedback from funding committees and external peer-reviewers and a conceptual framework of the key components of feedback was developed using content analysis. Phase 2 was an online survey completed by 113 NIHR applicants. Frequencies of responses to closed questions were calculated. Perceptions of quality and value of feedback were identified using content analysis of open-text responses.

RESULTS

In phase 1, a conceptual framework was developed with seven overarching categories: 'Study structure and quality'; 'Team and infrastructure'; 'Acceptability to patients and professionals'; 'Study justification and design'; 'Risks and contingencies'; 'Outputs'; 'Value for money'. A higher frequency of feedback was provided at stage 2 and for successful applications across the majority of components. In phase 2, frequency data showed that opinion on feedback was dependent on funding outcome. Content analysis revealed four main themes: 'Committee transparency'; 'Content validity and reliability'; 'Additional support'; Recognition of effort and constraints'.

CONCLUSIONS

This study provides key insights and understanding into the quality, content and value of feedback provided to NIHR applicants. The study identified key areas for improvement that can arise in NIHR funding applications, as well as in the feedback given to applicants that are applicable to other funding organisations. These findings could be used to inform funding application guidance documents to help researchers strengthen their applications and used more widely by other funders to inform their feedback processes.