Wessex Institute, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
School of Primary Care, Population Sciences and Medical Education, Faculty of Medicine, University of Southampton, Southampton, United Kingdom.
PLoS One. 2020 Nov 5;15(11):e0239757. doi: 10.1371/journal.pone.0239757. eCollection 2020.
Innovations in decision-making practice for allocation of funds in health research are emerging; however, it is not clear to what extent these are used. This study aims to better understand current decision-making practices for the allocation of research funding from the perspective of UK and international health funders. An online survey (active March-April 2019) was distributed by email to UK and international health and health-related funding organisations (e.g., biomedical and social), and was publicised on social media. The survey collected information about decision-making approaches for research funding allocation, and covered assessment criteria, current and past practices, and considerations for improvements or future practice. A mixed methods analysis provided descriptive statistics (frequencies and percentages of responses) and an inductive thematic framework of key experiences. Thirty-one responses were analysed, representing government-funded organisations and charities in the health sector from the UK, Europe and Australia. Four themes were extracted and provided a narrative framework. 1. The most reported decision-making approaches were external peer review, triage, and face-to-face committee meetings; 2. Key values underpinned decision-making processes. These included transparency and gaining perspectives from reviewers with different expertise (e.g., scientific, patient and public); 3. Cross-cutting challenges of the decision-making processes faced by funders included bias, burden and external limitations; 4. Evidence of variations and innovations from the most reported decision-making approaches, including proportionate peer review, number of decision-points, virtual committee meetings and sandpits (interactive workshop). Broadly similar decision-making processes were used by all funders in this survey. Findings indicated a preference for funders to adapt current decision-making processes rather than using more innovative approaches: however, there is a need for more flexibility in decision-making and support to applicants. Funders indicated the need for information and empirical evidence on innovations which would help to inform decision-making in research fund allocation.
创新的决策实践在卫生研究资金分配中不断涌现;然而,尚不清楚这些创新在多大程度上得到了应用。本研究旨在从英国和国际卫生资助者的角度,更好地了解当前的研究资金分配决策实践。我们通过电子邮件向英国和国际卫生及相关资助组织(如生物医学和社会)分发了一份在线调查(2019 年 3 月至 4 月期间有效),并在社交媒体上进行了宣传。该调查收集了有关研究资金分配决策方法的信息,涵盖了评估标准、当前和过去的做法,以及改进或未来实践的考虑因素。混合方法分析提供了描述性统计数据(回答的频率和百分比)和关键经验的归纳主题框架。分析了 31 份回复,这些回复代表了来自英国、欧洲和澳大利亚的卫生部门的政府资助组织和慈善机构。提取了四个主题,并提供了一个叙述框架。1. 报告最多的决策方法是外部同行评审、分类和面对面的委员会会议;2. 决策过程的关键价值观包括透明度和从具有不同专业知识(如科学、患者和公众)的评审员那里获得观点;3. 资助者面临的决策过程的交叉挑战包括偏见、负担和外部限制;4. 最常报告的决策方法的创新和变化的证据,包括适当的同行评审、决策点的数量、虚拟委员会会议和沙坑(互动研讨会)。本调查中的所有资助者都使用了大致相似的决策过程。研究结果表明,资助者更倾向于调整当前的决策过程,而不是采用更具创新性的方法:然而,决策需要更具灵活性,并为申请人提供支持。资助者表示需要有关创新的信息和经验证据,这将有助于为研究资金分配中的决策提供信息。