scholarly journals Examining the role of funders in ensuring value and reducing waste in research: An organizational case-study of the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute

F1000Research ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 288
Author(s):  
Evelyn P. Whitlock ◽  
Joe V. Selby ◽  
Kelly M. Dunham ◽  
Alicia Fernandez ◽  
Laura P. Forsythe ◽  
...  

International experts have recommended actions that funders can take to improve the value of research investments. They state that self-assessment and public sharing are the basis for accountability and improvement. We examined our policies and practice to determine the extent to which the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute’s (PCORI) policies and practices as a research funder align with international best practice recommendations. A self-audit of current policies and practice against 17 recommendations and 35 sub-recommendations representing five major stages of research production, based on adapted methods used for self-assessment by another funder, was performed.  Fit of existing PCORI policies and practices with 35 sub-recommendations, qualitative assessment of adequacy (area of strength; area of partial strength; area of growth; not applicable) for 17 recommendations for five stages of research production was assessed. Of the 17 recommendations, 15 were applicable to PCORI’s research mission and focus.  PCORI has policies and practices in place for all elements of six recommendations (“area of strength”) and policies that address each element but with some still in active development for three (“area of partial strength”). PCORI is partially addressing six of the 15 relevant recommendations (“area of growth”). Areas for growth include making study protocols publicly available, improving policies on data sharing, and enhancing collaboration with other funders to reduce redundant funding. A voluntary consortium of international funders is underway to encourage further progress, including additional self-assessment and public sharing for accountability. These findings indicate PCORI has undertaken efforts to align its funding practices with international recommendations to ensure the value of public dollars invested in research.  Further efforts will likely require additional coordination and collaboration between funders and stakeholders.

F1000Research ◽  
2019 ◽  
Vol 8 ◽  
pp. 288
Author(s):  
Evelyn P. Whitlock ◽  
Joe V. Selby ◽  
Kelly M. Dunham ◽  
Alicia Fernandez ◽  
Laura P. Forsythe ◽  
...  

International experts have recommended actions that funders can take to improve the value of research investments. They state that self-assessment and public sharing are the basis for accountability and improvement. We examined our policies and practice to determine the extent to which the Patient-Centered Outcomes Research Institute’s (PCORI) policies and practices as a research funder align with international best practice recommendations. A self-audit of current policies and practice against 17 recommendations and 35 sub-recommendations representing five major stages of research production, based on adapted methods used for self-assessment by another funder, was performed.  Fit of existing PCORI policies and practices with 35 sub-recommendations, qualitative assessment of adequacy (area of strength; area of partial strength; area of growth; not applicable) for 17 recommendations for five stages of research production was assessed. Of the 17 recommendations, 15 were applicable to PCORI’s research mission and focus.  PCORI has policies and practices in place for all elements of six recommendations (“area of strength”) and policies that address each element but with some still in active development for three (“area of partial strength”). PCORI is partially addressing six of the 15 relevant recommendations (“area of growth”). Areas for growth include making study protocols publicly available, improving policies on data sharing, and enhancing collaboration with other funders to reduce redundant funding. A voluntary consortium of international funders is underway to encourage further progress, including additional self-assessment and public sharing for accountability. These findings indicate PCORI has undertaken efforts to align its funding practices with international recommendations to ensure the value of public dollars invested in research.  Further efforts will likely require additional coordination and collaboration between funders and stakeholders.


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 35
Author(s):  
Anne Cody ◽  
Maura Hiney ◽  
Patricia Clarke ◽  
Mairead O'Driscoll

As a public funder of health research, the Health Research Board (HRB) Ireland has an obligation to manage its funds well and to maximise the value of the research that it funds. Ways in which research funding can be wasted have been examined by researchers over the years, and a seminal series on research waste was published in the Lancet in 2014. The series systematically analysed every step of the funding lifecycle in five major stages and made recommendations to various actors including research funders. Prompted by its participation in the Ensuring Value in Research Funders’ Forum, between June and October 2019 the HRB undertook a self-audit against the 17 recommendations identified in the Lancet series. Key HRB staff collated relevant policies and practices regarding each recommendation and sub-recommendation and assessed the HRB’s performance under each heading. The self-assessment reflects the state of HRB policies and practices in October 2019.  Of the 17 recommendations, five were found to be areas of strength and six were found to be areas of partial strength. Areas of strength reflect work over many years such as support for evidence synthesis, strong processes around award selection, driving research integrity and open data including an HRB-funded open publishing platform. Four recommendations were found to be areas for growth. These mostly revolve around real time reporting of study protocols and of ongoing funded research outside of clinical trials. Work is progressing to address some of these areas. Two were found not to apply to the HRB.


2021 ◽  
Vol 4 ◽  
pp. 35
Author(s):  
Anne Cody ◽  
Maura Hiney ◽  
Patricia Clarke ◽  
Mairead O'Driscoll

As a public funder of health research, the Health Research Board (HRB) Ireland has an obligation to manage its funds well and to maximise the value of the research that it funds. Ways in which research funding can be wasted have been examined by researchers over the years, and a seminal series on research waste was published in the Lancet in 2014. The series systematically analysed every step of the funding lifecycle in five major stages and made recommendations to various actors including research funders. Prompted by its participation in the Ensuring Value in Research Funders’ Forum, between June and October 2019 the HRB undertook a self-audit against the 17 recommendations and 35 sub-recommendations identified in the Lancet series. Key HRB staff collated relevant policies and practices regarding each recommendation and sub-recommendation and assessed the HRB’s performance under each heading. The self-assessment reflects the state of HRB policies and practices in October 2019. Of the 17 recommendations, two were found not to apply to the HRB. Of the remaining 15 recommendations covering 33 sub-recommendations, five were found to be areas of strength and six were found to be areas of partial strength. These 11 recommendations encompass 22 sub-recommendations. Areas of strength reflect work over many years such as support for evidence synthesis, strong processes around award selection, driving research integrity and open data including an HRB-funded open publishing platform. Four recommendations were found to be areas for growth. These mostly revolve around real time reporting of study protocols and of ongoing funded research outside of clinical trials. Work is progressing to address some of these areas.


While patient-centered communication supports patient self-care, providers rarely have enough time to consistently use patient- centered communication techniques. Technology has potential to support patient-centered communication, but frequently older adults prefer face-to-face communication with providers. Conversational agents (CAs) may support provider communication with older adults by emulating best practices from face-to-face communication. We investigated older adults’ response to a prototype CA communication system that served as a virtual provider and presented medication instructions using teachback, a recommended best practice that involves asking patients questions to ‘close the communication loop’. Older adults were told how to take medications by a CA who used (or did not use) teachback, and then were interviewed. Older adults were open to interacting with the CA and thought it would help support self-care. They thought the CA was a more effective teacher when using teachback and that this interactive strategy helped them remember the instructions. However, teachback did not improve instruction memory.


BMJ ◽  
2020 ◽  
pp. m4435
Author(s):  
Bridget Gaglio ◽  
Michelle Henton ◽  
Amanda Barbeau ◽  
Emily Evans ◽  
David Hickam ◽  
...  

2020 ◽  
pp. 106256
Author(s):  
Shannon M. Kearney ◽  
Kelly Williams ◽  
Cara Nikolajski ◽  
Margaret Park ◽  
Kevin L. Kraemer ◽  
...  

2021 ◽  
Vol 16 (3) ◽  
pp. S192
Author(s):  
V. Musigdilok ◽  
B. Creekmur ◽  
E. Rozema ◽  
M. Gould

Sign in / Sign up

Export Citation Format

Share Document