The post-award effort of managing and reporting on funded research: a scoping review.

INTRODUCTION: Reporting is a mechanism for funding organisations to monitor and manage the progress, outputs, outcomes, and impacts of the research they fund. Inconsistent approaches to reporting and post-award management, and a growing demand for research information, can lead to perception of unnecessary administrative effort that impacts on decision-making and research activity. Identifying this effort, and what stakeholders see as unmet need for improvement, is crucial if funders and Higher Education Institutions (HEIs) are to streamline their practices and provide better support with reporting activities. In this review, we summarise the processes in post-award management, compare current practices, and explore the purpose of collecting information on funded research. We also identify areas where unnecessary effort is perceived and improvement is needed, using previously reported solutions to inform recommendations for funders and HEIs. METHODS: We conducted a scoping review of the relevant research and grey literature. Electronic searches of databases, and manual searches of journals and funder websites, resulted in inclusion of 52 records and 11 websites. Information on HEI and funder post-award management processes was extracted, catalogued, and summarised to inform discussion. RESULTS: Post-award management is a complex process that serves many purposes but requires considerable effort, particularly in the set up and reporting of research. Perceptions of unnecessary effort stem from inefficiencies in compliance, data management and reporting approaches, and there is evidence of needed improvement in mechanisms of administrative support, research impact assessment, monitoring, and evaluation. Solutions should focus on integrating digital systems to reduce duplication, streamlining reporting methods, and improving administrative resources in HEIs. CONCLUSIONS: Funders and HEIs should work together to support a more efficient post-award management process. The value of research information, and how it is collected and used, can be improved by aligning practices and addressing the specific issues highlighted in this review.

Advancing health through evidence assisted decisions with health policy and systems research program: a qualitative evaluation of a national health research grant management process in the Philippines.

BACKGROUND: Health policy and systems research (HPSR) has influenced Philippine policies, including tobacco control, mental health, and COVID-19. The Department of Health (DOH) Philippines and Philippine Council for Health Research and Development (PCHRD) launched the Advancing Health through Evidence-Assisted Decisions (AHEAD) with HPSR program in 2017, aiming to build a community of researchers and decision-makers committed to evidence production and utilization. Research systems employ grant management processes for transparency and accountability in research funding, preventing waste, fraud, and misuse of funds. METHODS: This study evaluated AHEAD-HPSR's grant management using surveys, interviews, and focus groups to document (1) grant administration processes implemented by DOH and PCHRD, and (2) experiences of grantees, program managers, staff, and policymakers. Data were initially analyzed through the USA Grant Accountability Office's Federal Grant Life Cycle, with new themes created as they emerged. The study identified processes and gaps in the research grant life cycle stages: design/redesign, pre-award, award, implementation, closeout, and research dissemination and utilization. RESULTS: Identification of research areas for the grant are identified using national and departmental research priorities. While Calls for Proposals are posted publicly, researchers that have previously worked with policymakers are contacted directly to submit proposals. The evaluation found that research is delayed by bureaucracies in grant administration, particularly in financial reporting and ethics review processes. Complying with the terminal financial report was identified as the most challenging part of the grant process due to immense auditing requirements. Grantees recommend the simplification of bureaucracy for fund release to enable them to focus on research work. CONCLUSION: This study contributes to the limited literature on health research grant management in developing countries. Valuable information and recommendations were contributed by stakeholders in this evaluation. These are manifestations of a continuing interest and desire to make health policy and systems research in the Philippines more robust and relevant. It is imperative for the program to continually evolve and build systems most applicable to its multidisciplinary context.

Challenges in the execution of public health research: Reflections from Public Health Research Initiative (PHRI) grant management in India.

Background: Well-planned health research is fundamental to the success of any public health system in leading to better population health outcomes. Although the Indian public health system is unique, it lacks strong linkages between research and practice. There is a pressing need to address the gap in the research to reduce the disease burden in the country. Although various efforts are made to enhance public health research, such research is rarely documented as a process. The objective of the present paper is to document issues and challenges in managing public health research grants awarded to the PHRI fellows from 2013-to 2021 under the PHRI project. Method: A mixed-method approach, including qualitative (in-depth) interviews and secondary review, was adopted to collect the challenges in executing PHRI grants (during 2013-2021). The in-depth interviews were conducted among the PHRI execution team, whereas the secondary document review was conducted among the PHRI fellows, and the findings are documented under major themes like administrative, technical, and financial issues and/or challenges. Result: A total of 35 candidates 16 intramural (IM) candidates affiliated with PHFI or IIPH institutes and 19 extramural (EM) candidates affiliated to other academic institutes were selected for the fellowship, The common challenges identified amongst intra & extramural fellows were inability to disseminate the study findings, challenges in communication and getting audited statements, changes in study methods without prior permission, mid study attrition of CO-PIs and high budget utilization. The specific difficulties identified from extramural fellows were change in institute affiliation, lack of support to fund utilization from the parent institute and difficulties in field validation. Conclusion: The present perspective emphasizes that the management and implementation of a research grant is the crucial part of achieving a project's desired outcome. The learnings of PHRI grant execution allows the researchers to understand the issues in terms of methodological rigour and financial guidelines, rigorous tracking of the project activities, and complying with the terms of funding agreement are crucial. The challenges explored in this grant execution recommend developing a structured public health grant management leadership program for researchers and executors.

Good Financial Grant Practice: A Tool for Developing and Demonstrating Institutional Financial and Grant Management Capacity in Global Health.

The administration and governance of grant funding across global health organizations presents enormous challenges. Meeting these challenges is crucial to ensuring that funds are used in the most effective way to improve health outcomes, in line with the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goal 3, "Ensure healthy lives and promote well-being for all at all ages." The Good Financial Grant Practice (GFGP) Standard (ARS 1651) is the world's first and, currently, only international standard for the financial governance and management of grant funding. Through consensus building and global harmonization between both low- and middle-income and high-income country players, the GFGP Standard has achieved a leveling impact: GFGP applies equally to, and can be implemented by, all types of organization, regardless of location, size, or whether they predominantly give or receive funding. GFGP can be used as a tool for addressing some of the challenges of the current funding model. Here, we describe our experiences and lessons learned from implementing GFGP across 4 diverse research institutions in India, Nigeria, Colombia, and the Philippines as part of our National Institute for Health Research Global Health Research Unit on Genomic Surveillance of Antimicrobial Resistance.