Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, Alberta, Canada
Department of Clinical Neurosciences, University of Calgary, Cumming School of Medicine, Calgary, Alberta, Canada.
BMJ Open. 2024 Nov 27;14(11):e084655. doi: 10.1136/bmjopen-2024-084655.
Ideally, medical research provides crucial data about disease processes, diagnoses, prognoses, treatment targets and outcomes, and systems of care. However, medical research is costly, and funding is difficult to receive because the processes are highly competitive. There is a paucity of data on the perspectives of researchers, funders, patients and the public about current funding paradigms. This study sought to understand the priorities and opinions of each group to better guide meaningful innovation in research funding processes.
In this Priorities & Expectations of Researchers, Funders, Patients and the Public Regarding the Funding & Conduct of Stroke Research study, we conducted in-depth interviews with medical researchers, funders, patients and members of the general public to learn their opinions of the current funding process and thoughts about alternative approaches. We used both purposive and snowball sampling to recruit participants and conducted semistructured interviews. The study ended when thematic saturation was attained. Qualitative analysis followed inductive grounded theory methodology.
41 interviews were completed (11 researchers, 10 funders, 10 patients, 10 members of the general public; 61% female). Interviewees expressed a high interest in supporting a comprehensive evaluation of the research grant funding process while integrating funding mechanisms that are more inclusive and reduce bias in topic selection and researchers who receive funds. Participants acknowledged a gap in patient and public involvement in setting a research agenda, choosing topics to be studied and focusing on specific outcomes. Crowdfunding was identified as an alternative strategy that could facilitate research democratisation; however, participants emphasised the importance of expert review of research proposals, as in current processes to continue to support rigour and trust in research proposal quality.
Our research revealed stakeholder concerns about the transparency and equity of current research funding paradigms. Suggestions to democratize research and explore alternative fundraising platforms necessitate a fundamental shift in traditional research funding processes.
理想情况下，医学研究提供有关疾病过程、诊断、预后、治疗靶点和结果以及护理系统的关键数据。然而，医学研究成本高昂，并且由于竞争激烈，资金难以获得。关于当前资金模式，研究人员、资助者、患者和公众的观点数据很少。本研究旨在了解每个群体的优先事项和意见，以更好地指导研究资金流程的有意义创新。
在这项关于研究资助和进行中风研究的研究人员、资助者、患者和公众的优先事项和期望的研究中，我们对医学研究人员、资助者、患者和普通公众进行了深入访谈，以了解他们对当前资金流程的看法以及对替代方法的想法。我们使用了有针对性和滚雪球抽样来招募参与者，并进行了半结构化访谈。当达到主题饱和时，研究结束。定性分析遵循归纳扎根理论方法。
完成了 41 次访谈（11 名研究人员、10 名资助者、10 名患者、10 名普通公众；61%为女性）。受访者对支持全面评估研究资助资金流程表现出浓厚兴趣，同时整合更具包容性的资助机制，减少在选题和获得资金的研究人员方面的偏见。参与者承认在确定研究议程、选择要研究的主题和关注特定结果方面，患者和公众参与度不足。众筹被确定为一种可以促进研究民主化的替代策略；然而，参与者强调了对研究提案进行专家审查的重要性，就像在当前的过程中一样，继续支持研究提案质量的严谨性和信任。
我们的研究揭示了利益相关者对当前研究资金模式的透明度和公平性的关注。使研究民主化和探索替代筹款平台的建议需要对传统研究资金流程进行根本性转变。
