Evaluation of resources to support production of high quality health information for patients and the public. Final report for NHS Research Outputs Programme

Durbin, J., Urquhart, C. & Yeoman, A. (2003). Evaluation of resources to support production of high quality health information for patients and the public. Final report for NHS Research Outputs Programme. Aberystwyth: Department of Information Studies, University of Wales Aberystwyth. Sponsorship: Department of Health

Genomics research: world survey of public funding.

BACKGROUND: Over the past two decades, genomics has evolved as a scientific research discipline. Genomics research was fueled initially by government and nonprofit funding sources, later augmented by private research and development (R&D) funding. Citizens and taxpayers of many countries have funded much of the research, and have expectations about access to the resulting information and knowledge. While access to knowledge gained from all publicly funded research is desired, access is especially important for fields that have broad social impact and stimulate public dialogue. Genomics is one such field, where public concerns are raised for reasons such as health care and insurance implications, as well as personal and ancestral identification. Thus, genomics has grown rapidly as a field, and attracts considerable interest. RESULTS: One way to study the growth of a field of research is to examine its funding. This study focuses on public funding of genomics research, identifying and collecting data from major government and nonprofit organizations around the world, and updating previous estimates of world genomics research funding, including information about geographical origins. We initially identified 89 publicly funded organizations; we requested information about each organization's funding of genomics research. Of these organizations, 48 responded and 34 reported genomics research expenditures (of those that responded but did not supply information, some did not fund such research, others could not quantify it). The figures reported here include all the largest funders and we estimate that we have accounted for most of the genomics research funding from government and nonprofit sources. CONCLUSION: Aggregate spending on genomics research from 34 funding sources averaged around $2.9 billion in 2003-2006. The United States spent more than any other country on genomics research, corresponding to 35% of the overall worldwide public funding (compared to 49% US share of public health research funding for all purposes). When adjusted to genomics funding intensity, however, the United States dropped below Ireland, the United Kingdom, and Canada, as measured both by genomics research expenditure per capita and per Gross Domestic Product.

Ethics Standards (HRPP) and Public Partnership (PARTAKE) to Address Clinical Research Concerns in India: Moving Toward Ethical, Responsible, Culturally Sensitive, and Community-Engaging Clinical Research.

Like other emerging economies, India's quest for independent, evidence-based, and affordable healthcare has led to robust and promising growth in the clinical research sector, with a compound annual growth rate (CAGR) of 20.4% between 2005 and 2010. However, while the fundamental drivers and strengths are still strong, the past few years witnessed a declining trend (CAGR -16.7%) amid regulatory concerns, activist protests, and sponsor departure. And although India accounts for 17.5% of the world's population, it currently conducts only 1% of clinical trials. Indian and international experts and public stakeholders gathered for a 2-day conference in June 2013 in New Delhi to discuss the challenges facing clinical research in India and to explore solutions. The main themes discussed were ethical standards, regulatory oversight, and partnerships with public stakeholders. The meeting was a collaboration of AAHRPP (Association for the Accreditation of Human Research Protection Programs)-aimed at establishing responsible and ethical clinical research standards-and PARTAKE (Public Awareness of Research for Therapeutic Advancements through Knowledge and Empowerment)-aimed at informing and engaging the public in clinical research. The present article covers recent clinical research developments in India as well as associated expectations, challenges, and suggestions for future directions. AAHRPP and PARTAKE provide etiologically based solutions to protect, inform, and engage the public and medical research sponsors.

PARTAKE survey of public knowledge and perceptions of clinical research in India.

BACKGROUND: A public that is an informed partner in clinical research is important for ethical, methodological, and operational reasons. There are indications that the public is unaware or misinformed, and not sufficiently engaged in clinical research but studies on the topic are lacking. PARTAKE - Public Awareness of Research for Therapeutic Advancements through Knowledge and Empowerment is a program aimed at increasing public awareness and partnership in clinical research. The PARTAKE Survey is a component of the program. OBJECTIVE: To study public knowledge and perceptions of clinical research. METHODS: A 40-item questionnaire combining multiple-choice and open-ended questions was administered to 175 English- or Hindi-speaking individuals in 8 public locations representing various socioeconomic strata in New Delhi, India. RESULTS: Interviewees were 18-84 old (mean: 39.6, SD ± 16.6), 23.6% female, 68.6% employed, 7.3% illiterate, 26.3% had heard of research, 2.9% had participated and 58.9% expressed willingness to participate in clinical research. The following perceptions were reported (% true/% false/% not aware): 'research benefits society' (94.1%/3.5%/2.3%), 'the government protects against unethical clinical research' (56.7%/26.3%/16.9%), 'research hospitals provide better care' (67.2%/8.7%/23.9%), 'confidentiality is adequately protected' (54.1%/12.3%/33.5%), 'participation in research is voluntary' (85.3%/5.8%/8.7%); 'participants treated like 'guinea pigs'' (20.7%/53.2%/26.0%), and 'compensation for participation is adequate' (24.7%/12.9%/62.3%). CONCLUSIONS: Results suggest the Indian public is aware of some key features of clinical research (e.g., purpose, value, voluntary nature of participation), and supports clinical research in general but is unaware of other key features (e.g., compensation, confidentiality, protection of human participants) and exhibits some distrust in the conduct and reporting of clinical trials. Larger, cross-cultural surveys are required to inform educational programs addressing these issues.

Mapping public sector organizations:An agenda for future research

This article summarizes the key findings from the five mapping case studies presented in this special issue and relates them back to the conceptual, definitional, and theoretical issues presented in the opening article (MacCarthaigh & Roness, 2012). In so doing, the article considers the alternative ways in which organizational change can best be captured, mapped, and explained and the key issues to be considered when conducting such exercises. As well as identifying how the case studies have advanced the possibilities for mapping public sector organizational change over time in a cross-national context and the benefits this offers for other aspects of public administration research, the article identifies some impediments to future research and collaboration in the field and suggests ways to overcome them. © Taylor & Francis Group, LLC.

The Role and Effectiveness of Public – Private Partnerships (NHS LIFT) in the Development of Enhanced Primary Care Premises and Services:Report for the National Institute for Health Research Service Delivery and Organisation programme

The research project analysed the role and effectiveness of LIFT via a multi-method study which included semi-structured interviews with policy elites and users, as well as case studies and an exploratory analysis of the financial characteristics of three LIFT Companies. While the team felt that it was able to identify key aspects relating to the advantages and drawbacks surrounding LIFT, some aspects relating to the representativeness of the study was adversely affected by a reluctance of PCTs to participate in the case study analysis and commercial confidentiality restrictions. The study was nonetheless able to identify important issues in relation to the funding and procurement of primary care premises and services.

Public-private partnerships and efficiency in public procurement of primary healthcare infrastructure: a qualitative research in the NHS UK

Aim There is growing interest in the contribution of public-private partnerships (PPPs) bridging the shortage of financial resources and management expertise in developing public healthcare infrastructure. However, few studies have evidenced PPPs’ ability in increasing efficiency in public procurement of primary healthcare infrastructure. The aim of this study was to assess to what extent PPPs would increase efficiency in public procurement of primary healthcare facilities. Subject and Methods A qualitative analysis, adopting a realistic research evaluation method, used data collected from a purposive sample of public (n=23) and private sector staff (n=2) directly involved in the UK National Health Service Local Improvement Finance Trust (LIFT). Results We find a positive association of LIFT helping to bridge public sector capital shortages for developing primary care surgeries. LIFT is negatively associated with inefficient procurement because it borrows finance from private banks, leaving public agencies paying high interest rates. The study shows that some contextual factors and mechanisms in LIFT play a major part in obstructing public staff from increasing procurement efficiency. Conclusion PPP’s ability to increase efficiency may be determined by contextual factors and mechanisms that restrict discretion over critical decisions by frontline public sector staff. Developing their capacity in monitoring PPP activities may make partnerships more efficient.

Transparency and Public Involvement in Animal Research

To be legitimate, research needs to be ethical, methodologically sound, of sufficient value to justify public expenditure and be transparent. Animal research has always been contested on ethical grounds, but there is now mounting evidence of poor scientific method, and growing doubts about its clinical value. So what of transparency? Here we examine the increasing focus on openness within animal research in the UK, analysing recent developments within the Home Office and within the main group representing the interests of the sector, Understanding Animal Research. We argue that, while important steps are being taken toward greater transparency, the legitimacy of animal research continues to be undermined by selective openness. We propose that openness could be increased through public involvement, and that this would bring about much needed improvements in animal research, as it has done in clinical research.