Fundamental challenges in assessing the impact of research infrastructure

Review of Indicators in the Context of Biobanking

Background: Biobanks that intend to serve as high-performing and stable elements of an innovative research ecosystem must have an established system for regular measurement and evaluation using appropriately set indicators. The main objective of this study was to provide a comprehensive overview of indicators in the context of biobanking, with new perspectives to highlight the existence of numerous options and introduce indicators that could help overcome problems associated with the difficult assessment of the impact of biobanks. Methods: A literature review was performed to identify publications relevant to the topic of indicators in biobanking. The Web of Science Core Collection and PubMed databases were searched using specific keywords. In addition, three articles that focused on indicators designed for the evaluation of research infrastructures were included in the review. Results: Based on the scientific literature for the biobanking field, many types of quantitative and qualitative indicators exist. They are mainly related to the quantity and quality of data and samples, their distribution, the monitoring of research projects, and subsequent publication outputs. The indicators identified in the biobanking literature primarily focus on the outcome, not the impact. Conclusions: Indicators identified in the biobanking literature may be further expanded with suggestions designed for other types of research infrastructures, while considering the context where biobanks operate and the needs of individual biobanking stakeholders. The establishment of a comprehensive monitoring system that captures all necessary elements is crucial for modern biobanks.

The Benefits, Barriers, and Risks of Big-Team Science

Progress in psychology has been frustrated by challenges concerning replicability, generalizability, strategy selection, inferential reproducibility, and computational reproducibility. Although often discussed separately, these five challenges may share a common cause: insufficient investment of intellectual and nonintellectual resources into the typical psychology study. We suggest that the emerging emphasis on big-team science can help address these challenges by allowing researchers to pool their resources together to increase the amount available for a single study. However, the current incentives, infrastructure, and institutions in academic science have all developed under the assumption that science is conducted by solo principal investigators and their dependent trainees, an assumption that creates barriers to sustainable big-team science. We also anticipate that big-team science carries unique risks, such as the potential for big-team-science organizations to be co-opted by unaccountable leaders, become overly conservative, and make mistakes at a grand scale. Big-team-science organizations must also acquire personnel who are properly compensated and have clear roles. Not doing so raises risks related to mismanagement and a lack of financial sustainability. If researchers can manage its unique barriers and risks, big-team science has the potential to spur great progress in psychology and beyond.

The organization and impacts of clinical research delivery workforce redeployment during the COVID-19 pandemic: a qualitative case study of one research-intensive acute hospital trust

BACKGROUND

COVID-19 has tested healthcare and research systems around the world, forcing the large-scale reorganization of hospitals, research infrastructure and resources. The United Kingdom has been singled out for the speed and scale of its research response. The efficiency of the United Kingdom's research mobilization was in large part predicated on the pre-existing embeddedness of the clinical research system within the National Health Service (NHS), a public, free-at-point-of-delivery healthcare system. In this paper we discuss the redeployment of the clinical research workforce to support the pandemic clinical services, detailing the process of organizing this redeployment, as well as the impacts redeployment has had on both staff and research delivery at one research-intensive acute NHS trust in London.

METHODS

A social science case study of one large research-active NHS trust drawing on data from an online questionnaire; participant observation of key research planning meetings; semi-structured interviews with staff involved in research; and document analysis of emails and official national and trust communications.

RESULTS

We found that at our case-study hospital trust, the research workforce was a resource that was effectively redeployed as part of the pandemic response. Research delivery workers were redeployed to clinical roles, to COVID-related research and to work maintaining the research system during the redeployment itself. Redeployed research workers faced some difficulties with technology and communication, but many had a positive experience and saw the redeployment as a significant and valuable moment in their career.

CONCLUSIONS

This study explicates the role of the research delivery workforce for the United Kingdom's COVID response. Redeployed research workers facilitated the emergency response by delivering significant amounts of patient care. The public also benefited from having a well-developed research infrastructure in place that was able to flexibly respond to a novel virus. Many research workers feel that the NHS should provide more support for this distinctive workforce.

Status of Research and Development Within Dental Institutes of Pakistan

Health sector institutes of Pakistan can play a pivotal part in improving the status of health sciences. This can be achieved by facilitating research and innovation facilities. It is a need of the day to emphasize academicians and institutional administrations to take keen interest in this regard. Knowledge of the present research and development conditions within higher education institutions may help in policy development and fund allocations at the required levels. Therefore, the objective of this study is to evaluate the status of research and development within dental Institutes of Pakistan. A 30 itemed questionnaire was e mailed/posted to all institutional heads of all registered and recognized dental institutes of Pakistan. Response rate was 62% showing lack of administrational interest. Insufficient infrastructure, inadequate research planning, execution and intellectual property management was recorded. It can be concluded that higher education dental institutions of Pakistan are in need of deeper administrational and educational input to gear up the progress of health sector in this direction.

Using bibliometrics to evaluate outcomes and influence of translational biomedical research centers

Introduction

Federal grant funding to support infrastructure development of translational biomedical research centers is a form of public health intervention. Establishing rigorous methods for measuring center success and outcomes is essential to justify continued funding.

Methods

Bibliometric data compiled from a 5-year funding cycle of neurodegeneration and translational neuroscience research center were analyzed using the package bibliometrix for open-source software R and the NIH-developed research tool iCite.

Results

The research team and their collaborators (n = 485) produced 157 grant-citing publications from 2015-2020. The science was produced by small research teams clustered around three main communities of topics: Alzheimer's Disease, brain imaging, and neuropsychological testing in the elderly. Using the relative citation ratio, the publications produced by the research team were found to be influential when compared to other R01-funded publications.

Conclusion

Recent developments in bibliometric analysis expand beyond traditional measurement capabilities to better understand the characteristics, outcomes, and influences of research teams. These findings can be used to inform researchers and institutions about research team composition, productivity, and success. Measures of research influence may be used to justify return on investment to funders.