Developing a toolkit for increasing the participation of black, Asian and minority ethnic communities in health and social care research

Background It is recognised that Black, Asian and Minority Ethnic (BAME) populations are generally underrepresented in research studies. The key objective of this work was to develop an evidence based, practical toolkit to help researchers maximise recruitment of BAME groups in research. Methods Development of the toolkit was an iterative process overseen by an expert steering group. Key steps included a detailed literature review, feedback from focus groups (including researchers and BAME community members) and further workshops and communication with participants to review the draft and final versions. Results Poor recruitment of BAME populations in research is due to complex reasons, these include factors such as inadequate attention to recruitment strategies and planning, poor engagement with communities and individuals due to issues such as cultural competency of researchers, historical poor experience of participating in research, and lack of links with community networks. Other factors include language issues, relevant expertise in research team and a lack of adequate resources that might be required in recruitment of BAME populations. Conclusions A toolkit was developed with key sections providing guidance on planning research and ensuring adequate engagement of communities and individuals. Together with sections suggesting how the research team can address training needs and adopt best practice. Researchers highlighted the issue of funding and how best to address BAME recruitment in grant applications, so a section on preparing a grant application was also included. The final toolkit document is practical, and includes examples of best practice and ‘top tips’ for researchers.

Journal Evaluation Systems: Evolution and Practices in China’s Social Sciences

Journal evaluation systems play an important role in academic evaluation. With many papers published in high-ranking journals, one can expect greater success in grant applications, higher internal resource allocations, faster promotions, and access to many other trappings of academic life. The expansion of China’s research and development systems and its rise as a significant contributor to global innovation have seen journal evaluation become a significant and much-scrutinized issue. Thus, in this chapter, we offer a comprehensive analysis of the current state-of-the-art in journal evaluation systems and practices. The review begins with a history of social science journal evaluation in China. We then systematically compare the two most influential journal lists of the present day: the Chinese Social Sciences Citation Index (CSSCI) and the “Attraction, Management and Influence” Comprehensive Evaluation Report (AMI). A small selection of influential lists produced by universities, research institutions, and professional associations are also discussed. The material presented provides deep insights into how social sciences research in China is assessed. These findings may also reveal some information about the journal evaluation activities of other countries. Overall, our aim is to make a valuable contribution to the theory and practice of journal evaluation so as to promote the sustainable and healthy development of journal management and evaluation systems both in China and abroad.

Experiences of the Hungarian EU funding in the 2014-2020 budgetary period

The aim of the paper is to analyse the implementation of Hungarian EU funding in the most recent budgetary period which ended in 2020. The research examines the intervention fields aimed by the operational programmes and the statistics of grant applications as well. In addition, the study gives a detailed analysis about the economic development programme compared to the one in the previous financial cycle. Overall, the aim is to seek the funding practice in Hungary regarding to the sectoral priorities and the characteristic of regional allocation.

Shining a Light Inside the “Black Box” of NIH Application Submission and Review

What happens to applications after they are submitted to the National Institutes of Health, and how can you better prepare yourself and your application for the process of peer review? The Center for Scientific Review (CSR) works closely with the 24 funding institutes and centers at the National Institutes of Health that provide funding support for projects of high scientific merit and high potential impact. CSR conducts the first level of review for the majority of grant applications submitted to the NIH, which includes 90% of R01s, 85% of Fellowships, and 95% of Small Business Innovation Research (SBIR) applications as well as many other research and training opportunity activities. In this capacity, CSR helps to identify the most meritorious projects, cutting-edge research, and future scientists who will advance the mission of the NIH: to enhance health, lengthen life, and reduce illness and disability. The purpose of this project is to provide an overview of 1) what happens to NIH applications before, during, and after peer review at CSR; 2) a summary of new and current peer review policies and practices that impact investigators and their submitted applications; and 3) strategies for developing a strong NIH grant application. Peer review is the cornerstone of the NIH grant supporting process, and an insider’s view can shine a light inside the “Black Box” of how the most meritorious projects are identified.

Blinding peer review

Concealing the identity of the principal investigator only partially closes the success gap between white and African American or Black researchers in NIH grant applications.

Transparent Peer Review of Grant Applications

The article's abstract is not available.

An experimental test of the effects of redacting grant applicant identifiers on peer review outcomes

Background: Blinding reviewers to applicant identity has been proposed to reduce bias in peer review. Methods: This experimental test used 1200 NIH grant applications, 400 from Black investigators, 400 matched applications from White investigators, and 400 randomly selected applications from White investigators. Applications were reviewed by mail in standard and redacted formats. Results: Redaction reduced, but did not eliminate, reviewers' ability to correctly guess features of identity. The primary, pre-registered analysis hypothesized a differential effect of redaction according to investigator race in the matched applications. A set of secondary analyses (not pre-registered) used the randomly selected applications from White scientists and tested the same interaction. Both analyses revealed similar effects: Standard format applications from White investigators scored better than those from Black investigators. Redaction cut the size of the difference by about half (e.g. from a Cohen's d of 0.20 to 0.10 in matched applications); redaction caused applications from White scientists to score worse but had no effect on scores for Black applications. Conclusions: Grant-writing considerations and halo effects are discussed as competing explanations for this pattern. The findings support further evaluation of peer review models that diminish the influence of applicant identity. Funding: Funding was provided by the NIH.

The Rethinking Clinical Trials (REaCT) Program. A Canadian-Led Pragmatic Trials Program: Strategies for Integrating Knowledge Users into Trial Design

We reviewed patient and health care provider (HCP) surveys performed through the REaCT program. The REaCT team has performed 15 patient surveys (2298 respondents) and 13 HCP surveys (1033 respondents) that have addressed a broad range of topics in breast cancer management. Over time, the proportion of surveys distributed by paper/regular mail has fallen, with electronic distribution now the norm. For the patient surveys, the median duration of the surveys was 3 months (IQR 2.5–7 months) and the median response rate was 84% (IQR 80–91.7%). For the HCP surveys, the median survey duration was 3 months (IQR 1.75–4 months), and the median response rate, where available, was 28% (IQR 21.2–49%). The survey data have so far led to: 10 systematic reviews, 6 peer-reviewed grant applications and 19 clinical trials. Knowledge users should be an essential component of clinical research. The REaCT program has integrated surveys as a standard step of their trials process. The COVID-19 pandemic and reduced face-to-face interactions with patients in the clinic as well as the continued importance of social media highlight the need for alternative means of distributing and responding to surveys.

Fondazione Telethon and Unione Italiana Lotta alla Distrofia Muscolare, a successful partnership for neuromuscular healthcare research of value for patients

In 2001, Fondazione Telethon and the Italian muscular dystrophy patient organisation Unione Italiana Lotta alla Distrofia Muscolare joined their efforts to design and launch a call for grant applications specifically dedicated to clinical projects in the field of neuromuscular disorders. This strategic initiative, run regularly over the years and still ongoing, aims at supporting research with impact on the daily life of people with a neuromuscular condition and is centred on macro-priorities identified by the patient organisation. It is investigator-driven, and all proposals are peer-reviewed for quality and feasibility. Over the years, this funding program contributed to strengthening the activities of the Italian neuromuscular clinical network, reaching many achievements in healthcare research. Moreover, it has been an enabling factor for innovative therapy experimentation at international level and prepared the clinical ground to make therapies available to Italian patients. The ultimate scope of healthcare research is to ameliorate the delivery of care. In this paper, the achievements of the funded studies are analysed also from this viewpoint, to ascertain to which extent they have fulfilled the original goals established by the patient organisation. The evidence presented indicates that this has been a highly fruitful program. Factors that contributed to its success, lessons learned, challenges, and issues that remain to be addressed are discussed to provide practical examples of an experience that could inspire also other organizations active in the field of rare disease research.