Suppr超能文献

用于患者和公众参与的研究发展助学金能否对资助申请产生积极影响?一项基于英国的小规模服务评估。

Can research development bursaries for patient and public involvement have a positive impact on grant applications? A UK-based, small-scale service evaluation.

作者信息

Walker Dawn-Marie, Pandya-Wood Raksha

机构信息

University of Nottingham, Nottingham, UK.

De Montfort University, Leicester, UK.

出版信息

Health Expect. 2015 Oct;18(5):1474-80. doi: 10.1111/hex.12127. Epub 2013 Sep 19.

Abstract

BACKGROUND

Increasingly, research grant awarding bodies are regarding involvement at all stages of research, including prior to funding, as good practice. However, it is unclear how researchers should pay for this. Therefore, a pre-funding bursary scheme was designed. Up to £500 could be requested for involvement to develop a grant application for which user involvement is a key requisite for the funding body concerned. As the bursary scheme had run for 2 years, an evaluation was conducted to ascertain whether the scheme was effective for incorporating early involvement and in developing the grant proposal.

RESULTS

Twelve applications were made of which all were funded. The mean amount requested was £432.91; with the mean amount awarded £308.72. The involvement activities conducted all used qualitative methodology. Feedback regarding the bursaries was positive: enabling refinement of the research question and design; developing dialogue between the service users and the researchers; and helping with team building, with service users sometimes becoming co-applicants or members of the steering groups. The bursaries provided a learning opportunity – about involvement for the researchers and about research for the service users. The ultimate aim of the scheme was to enhance the research grant. Regarding this, the involvement paid for by the bursary meant that applicants could complete the involvement sections with in-depth information and clarity.

CONCLUSION

For a relatively small financial outlay, appropriate involvement was made possible at an important part of the research process which is usually neglected due to lack of funding. Recommendations for implementation made.

摘要

背景

越来越多的研究资助机构将研究各阶段的参与,包括资助前的参与,视为良好实践。然而,目前尚不清楚研究人员应如何为此付费。因此,设计了一项资助前助学金计划。对于那些将用户参与作为相关资助机构关键要求的资助申请,最多可申请500英镑用于参与制定申请。由于该助学金计划已实施两年,因此进行了一项评估,以确定该计划在纳入早期参与和制定资助申请方面是否有效。

结果

共收到12份申请,全部获得资助。申请的平均金额为432.91英镑;授予的平均金额为308.72英镑。所开展的参与活动均采用定性方法。有关助学金的反馈是积极的:有助于完善研究问题和设计;促进服务用户与研究人员之间的对话;并有助于团队建设,服务用户有时会成为共同申请人或指导小组的成员。助学金提供了一个学习机会——对研究人员来说是关于参与,对服务用户来说是关于研究。该计划的最终目标是提高研究资助。在这方面,由助学金支付的参与意味着申请人可以在参与部分填写深入且清晰的信息。

结论

通过相对较少的资金投入,在研究过程中一个通常因缺乏资金而被忽视的重要部分实现了适当的参与。并提出了实施建议。

相似文献

2
Evaluating a grant development public involvement funding scheme: a qualitative document analysis.
Res Involv Engagem. 2024 Jun 10;10(1):57. doi: 10.1186/s40900-024-00588-w.
6
Primary Care Research Team Assessment (PCRTA): development and evaluation.
Occas Pap R Coll Gen Pract. 2002 Feb(81):iii-vi, 1-72.
7
Gender differences in research grant applications and funding outcomes for medical school faculty.
J Womens Health (Larchmt). 2008 Mar;17(2):207-14. doi: 10.1089/jwh.2007.0412.
8
The legal, governance and ethical implications of involving service users and carers in research.
Int J Health Care Qual Assur. 2019 Jun 10;32(5):818-831. doi: 10.1108/IJHCQA-07-2017-0131.
10
Evaluation of a national training programme to support engagement in mental health services: Learning enablers and learning gains.
J Psychiatr Ment Health Nurs. 2019 Nov;26(9-10):323-336. doi: 10.1111/jpm.12535. Epub 2019 Oct 7.

引用本文的文献

2
What Matters to Whom: Patient and Public Involvement in Research.
Clin Obstet Gynecol. 2022 Jun 1;65(2):268-276. doi: 10.1097/GRF.0000000000000694. Epub 2022 Feb 18.
3
Patient and Public Involvement in Sexual and Reproductive Health: Time to Properly Integrate Citizen's Input into Science.
Int J Environ Res Public Health. 2020 Oct 31;17(21):8048. doi: 10.3390/ijerph17218048.

本文引用的文献

1
Funding: Australia's grant system wastes time.
Nature. 2013 Mar 21;495(7441):314. doi: 10.1038/495314d.
2
The impact of patient and public involvement on UK NHS health care: a systematic review.
Int J Qual Health Care. 2012 Feb;24(1):28-38. doi: 10.1093/intqhc/mzr066. Epub 2011 Nov 22.
3
The GRIPP checklist: strengthening the quality of patient and public involvement reporting in research.
Int J Technol Assess Health Care. 2011 Oct;27(4):391-9. doi: 10.1017/S0266462311000481.
4
Can the impact of public involvement on research be evaluated? A mixed methods study.
Health Expect. 2012 Sep;15(3):229-41. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2010.00660.x. Epub 2011 Feb 17.
5
A multidimensional conceptual framework for analysing public involvement in health services research.
Health Expect. 2008 Mar;11(1):72-84. doi: 10.1111/j.1369-7625.2007.00476.x.
6
The impact of service user involvement in research.
Int J Health Care Qual Assur Inc Leadersh Health Serv. 2005;18(2-3):103-12. doi: 10.1108/09526860510588133.
7
Consumer involvement in research projects: the activities of research funders.
Health Policy. 2004 Aug;69(2):229-38. doi: 10.1016/j.healthpol.2003.12.011.
8
Consumer involvement in health research: a review and research agenda.
Health Policy. 2002 Aug;61(2):213-36. doi: 10.1016/s0168-8510(01)00214-7.
9
Lay perspectives: advantages for health research.
BMJ. 1998 Feb 7;316(7129):463-6. doi: 10.1136/bmj.316.7129.463.
10
How can health service users contribute to the NHS research and development programme?
BMJ. 1995 May 20;310(6990):1318-20. doi: 10.1136/bmj.310.6990.1318.

文献AI研究员

20分钟写一篇综述,助力文献阅读效率提升50倍。

立即体验

用中文搜PubMed

大模型驱动的PubMed中文搜索引擎

马上搜索

文档翻译

学术文献翻译模型,支持多种主流文档格式。

立即体验