Gender parity perspectives in Asia Pacific: a descriptive analysis of Philippine rheumatology conferences.

Gender parity at conferences can facilitate progress in academia towards the attainment of gender equality as emphasized in the United Nations' Sustainable Development Goals. The Philippines is a low to middle-income country in the Asia Pacific with relatively egalitarian gender norms experiencing significant growth in rheumatology. We examined the Philippines as a case study to analyze the impact of divergent gender norms on gender equity in rheumatology conference participation. We used publicly available data from PRA conference materials from 2009 to 2021. Gender was identified from information provided by organizers, online science directory networks, and a name-to-gender inference platform, the Gender application program interface (API). International speakers were identified separately. The results were then compared to other rheumatology conferences around the world. The PRA had 47% female faculty. Women were more likely to be the first authors in abstracts at the PRA (68%). There were more females among new inductees in PRA with the male: female ratio (M:F) of 1:3. The gender gap among new members declined from 5:1 to 2.7:1 from 2010 to 2015. However, low female representation was observed among international faculty (16%). Gender parity at the PRA was found to be considerably better when compared to other rheumatology conferences in the USA, Mexico, India, and Europe. However, a wide gender gap persisted among international speakers. Cultural and social constructs may potentially contribute to gender equity in academic conferences. Further research is recommended to assess the impact of gender norms on gender parity in academia in other Asia-Pacific countries.

Perceptions of gender equity and markers of achievement in a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre: a qualitative study.

BACKGROUND: The need to improve gender equity (GE) in academic medicine is well documented. Biomedical Research Centres (BRCs), partnerships between leading National Health Service (NHS) organizations and universities in England, conduct world-class translational research funded by the National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR). In 2011, eligibility for BRC funding was restricted to universities demonstrating sustained GE success recognized by the Athena SWAN Charter for Women in Science Silver awards. Despite this structural change, GE research in BRC settings is underdeveloped, yet critical to the acceleration of women's advancement and leadership. To explore both women's and men's perceptions of GE and current markers of achievement in a BRC setting. METHODS: Thematic analysis of data from two research projects: 53 GE survey respondents' free-text comments (34 women, 16 men), and 16 semi-structured interviews with women affiliated to the NIHR Oxford BRC. RESULTS: Four major themes emerged from the analysis: perceptions of the Athena SWAN Charter for Women in Science (GE policy); views on monitoring GE in BRCs; views on current markers of achievement in academia and GE; and recommendations for actions to improve GE in BRC settings. Monitoring of GE in BRCs was deemed to be important, but complex. Participants felt that current markers of achievement were not equitable to women, as they did not take contextual factors into account such as maternity leave and caring responsibilities. BRC-specific organizational policies and metrics are needed in order to monitor and catalyse GE. CONCLUSIONS: Markers of achievement for monitoring GE in BRCs should consider contextual factors specific to BRCs and women's career progression and professional advancement. GE markers of achievement should be complemented with broader aspects of equality, diversity and inclusion.

Understanding the Athena SWAN award scheme for gender equality as a complex social intervention in a complex system: analysis of Silver award action plans in a comparative European perspective.

BACKGROUND: Given the complex mix of structural, cultural and institutional factors that produce barriers for women in science, an equally complex intervention is required to understand and address them. The Athena SWAN Award Scheme for Gender Equality has become a widespread means to address barriers for women's advancement and leadership in the United Kingdom, Ireland, Australia, the United States of America and Canada, while the European Commission is exploring the introduction of a similar award scheme across Europe. METHODS: This study analyses the design and implementation of 16 departmental Athena SWAN Silver Action Plans in Medical Sciences at one of the world's leading universities in Oxford, United Kingdom. Data pertaining to the design and implementation of gender equality interventions were extracted from the action plans, analysed thematically, coded using categories from the 2015 Athena SWAN Charter Awards Handbook and synthesised against a typology of gender equality interventions in the European Research Area. The results were further analysed against the complexity research literature framework, where research organisations are perceived as dynamic systems that adapt, interact and co-evolve with other systems. RESULTS: Athena SWAN is a complex contextually embedded system of action planning within the context of universities. It depends on a multitude of contextual variables that relate in complex, non-linear ways and dynamically adapt to constantly moving targets and new emergent conditions. Athena SWAN Silver Action Plans conform to the key considerations of complexity - (1) multiple actions and areas of intervention with a focus on the complex system being embedded in local dynamics, (2) the non-linearity of interventions and the constantly emerging conditions, and (3) impact in terms of contribution to change, improved conditions to foster change and the increased probability that change can occur. CONCLUSIONS: To enact effective sustainable structural and cultural change for gender equality, it is necessary to acknowledge and operationalise complexity as a frame of reference. Athena SWAN is the single most comprehensive and systemic gender equality scheme in Europe. It can be further strengthened by promoting the integration of sex and gender analysis in research and education. Gender equality policies in the wider European Research Area can benefit from exploring Athena SWAN's contextually embedded systemic approach to dynamic action planning and inclusive focus on all genders and categories of staff and students.

New indicators and indexes for benchmarking university-industry-government innovation in medical and life science clusters: results from the European FP7 Regions of Knowledge HealthTIES project.

BACKGROUND: While the European Union is striving to become the 'Innovation Union', there remains a lack of quantifiable indicators to compare and benchmark regional innovation clusters. To address this issue, a HealthTIES (Healthcare, Technology and Innovation for Economic Success) consortium was funded by the European Union's Regions of Knowledge initiative, research and innovation funding programme FP7. HealthTIES examined whether the health technology innovation cycle was functioning differently in five European regional innovation clusters and proposed regional and joint actions to improve their performance. The clusters included BioCat (Barcelona, Catalonia, Spain), Medical Delta (Leiden, Rotterdam and Delft, South Holland, Netherlands), Oxford and Thames Valley (United Kingdom), Life Science Zürich (Switzerland), and Innova Észak-Alföld (Debrecen, Hungary). METHODS: Appreciation of the 'triple helix' of university-industry-government innovation provided the impetus for the development of two quantifiable innovation indexes and related indicators. The HealthTIES H-index is calculated for disease and technology platforms based on the h-index proposed by Hirsch. The HealthTIES Innovation Index is calculated for regions based on 32 relevant quantitative and discriminative indicators grouped into 12 categories and 3 innovation phases, namely 'Input' (n = 12), 'Innovation System' (n = 9) and 'Output' (n = 11). RESULTS: The HealthTIES regions had developed relatively similar disease and technology platform profiles, yet with distinctive strengths and weaknesses. The regional profiles of the innovation cycle in each of the three phases were surprisingly divergent. Comparative assessments based on the indicators and indexes helped identify and share best practice and inform regional and joint action plans to strengthen the competitiveness of the HealthTIES regions. CONCLUSION: The HealthTIES indicators and indexes provide useful practical tools for the measurement and benchmarking of university-industry-government innovation in European medical and life science clusters. They are validated internally within the HealthTIES consortium and appear to have a degree of external prima facie validity. Potentially, the tools and accompanying analyses can be used beyond the HealthTIES consortium to inform other regional governments, researchers and, possibly, large companies searching for their next location, analyse and benchmark 'triple helix' dynamics within their own networks over time, and to develop integrated public-private and cross-regional research and innovation strategies in Europe and beyond.

"'Academic' is a dirty word": Intended impact pathways of an emerging academic health centre in tropical regional Australia.

BACKGROUND: The Tropical Australian Academic Health Centre (TAAHC) is being established in northern Queensland across a vast rural geography. The study aim is to identify intended impact pathways and beneficiaries of TAAHC as well as experienced and anticipated challenges. METHODOLOGY: The study is an empirical case study nested within a comparative multi-case study on academic health centres (AHCs). Data were collected from documents, observation, and interviews with 24 health system and university stakeholders. Intended impact pathways were identified abductively from analysis of aspirations and challenges. RESULTS: Aspirations of TAAHC reflect an ultimate aim to improve the health of the northern Queensland population. Challenges were trust and communication, understanding value and return on investment, health system receptiveness to building a research culture, prioritising and influencing the research agenda, and structure of the health system. DISCUSSION: The study identifies three interdependent transitions that comprise the main intended impact pathway in TAAHC. Stakeholders expected TAAHC to effect health systems change and improvement rather than drive discovery-oriented academic research associated with AHCs elsewhere. CONCLUSION: The findings contribute to the empirical evidence base on the role of AHCs internationally and to ongoing initiatives to establish and resource AHCs in Australia.

ISRIA statement: ten-point guidelines for an effective process of research impact assessment.

As governments, funding agencies and research organisations worldwide seek to maximise both the financial and non-financial returns on investment in research, the way the research process is organised and funded is becoming increasingly under scrutiny. There are growing demands and aspirations to measure research impact (beyond academic publications), to understand how science works, and to optimise its societal and economic impact. In response, a multidisciplinary practice called research impact assessment is rapidly developing. Given that the practice is still in its formative stage, systematised recommendations or accepted standards for practitioners (such as funders and those responsible for managing research projects) across countries or disciplines to guide research impact assessment are not yet available.In this statement, we propose initial guidelines for a rigorous and effective process of research impact assessment applicable to all research disciplines and oriented towards practice. This statement systematises expert knowledge and practitioner experience from designing and delivering the International School on Research Impact Assessment (ISRIA). It brings together insights from over 450 experts and practitioners from 34 countries, who participated in the school during its 5-year run (from 2013 to 2017) and shares a set of core values from the school's learning programme. These insights are distilled into ten-point guidelines, which relate to (1) context, (2) purpose, (3) stakeholders' needs, (4) stakeholder engagement, (5) conceptual frameworks, (6) methods and data sources, (7) indicators and metrics, (8) ethics and conflicts of interest, (9) communication, and (10) community of practice.The guidelines can help practitioners improve and standardise the process of research impact assessment, but they are by no means exhaustive and require evaluation and continuous improvement. The prima facie effectiveness of the guidelines is based on the systematised expert and practitioner knowledge of the school's faculty and participants derived from their practical experience and research evidence. The current knowledge base has gaps in terms of the geographical and scientific discipline as well as stakeholder coverage and representation. The guidelines can be further strengthened through evaluation and continuous improvement by the global research impact assessment community.

Why do women choose or reject careers in academic medicine? A narrative review of empirical evidence.

Women are under-represented in academic medicine. We reviewed the empirical evidence focusing on the reasons for women's choice or rejection of careers in academic medicine. Using a systematic search, we identified 52 studies published between 1985, and 2015. More than half had methodological limitations and most were from North America. Eight main themes were explored in these studies. There was consistent evidence for four of these themes: women are interested in teaching more than in research; participation in research can encourage women into academic medicine; women lack adequate mentors and role models; and women experience gender discrimination and bias. The evidence was conflicting on four themes: women are less interested in research than men; women lose commitment to research as their education and training progress; women are deterred from academic careers by financial considerations; and women are deterred by concerns about work-life balance. Inconsistency of findings across studies suggests significant opportunities to overcome barriers by providing a more enabling environment. We identified substantial gaps in the scientific literature that could form the focus of future research, including shifting the focus from individuals' career choices to the societal and organisational contexts and cultures within which those choices are made; extending the evidence base to include a wider range of countries and settings; and testing the efficacy of interventions.

Closing the gender leadership gap: a multi-centre cross-country comparison of women in management and leadership in academic health centres in the European Union.

BACKGROUND: Women's participation in medicine and the need for gender equality in healthcare are increasingly recognised, yet little attention is paid to leadership and management positions in large publicly funded academic health centres. This study illustrates such a need, taking the case of four large European centres: Charité - Universitätsmedizin Berlin (Germany), Karolinska Institutet (Sweden), Medizinische Universität Wien (Austria), and Oxford Academic Health Science Centre (United Kingdom). CASE: The percentage of female medical students and doctors in all four countries is now well within the 40-60% gender balance zone. Women are less well represented among specialists and remain significantly under-represented among senior doctors and full professors. All four centres have made progress in closing the gender leadership gap on boards and other top-level decision-making bodies, but a gender leadership gap remains relevant. The level of achieved gender balance varies significantly between the centres and largely mirrors country-specific welfare state models, with more equal gender relations in Sweden than in the other countries. Notably, there are also similar trends across countries and centres: gender inequality is stronger within academic enterprises than within hospital enterprises and stronger in middle management than at the top level. These novel findings reveal fissures in the 'glass ceiling' effects at top-level management, while the barriers for women shift to middle-level management and remain strong in academic positions. The uneven shifts in the leadership gap are highly relevant and have policy implications. CONCLUSION: Setting gender balance objectives exclusively for top-level decision-making bodies may not effectively promote a wider goal of gender equality. Academic health centres should pay greater attention to gender equality as an issue of organisational performance and good leadership at all levels of management, with particular attention to academic enterprises and newly created management structures. Developing comprehensive gender-sensitive health workforce monitoring systems and comparing progress across academic health centres in Europe could help to identify the gender leadership gap and utilise health human resources more effectively.

Advancing gender equality through the Athena SWAN Charter for Women in Science: an exploratory study of women's and men's perceptions.

BACKGROUND: While in the United Kingdom, Ireland, and Australia, higher education and research institutions are widely engaged with the Athena SWAN Charter for Women in Science to advance gender equality, empirical research on this process and its impact is rare. This study combined two data sets (free- text comments from a survey and qualitative interviews) to explore the range of experiences and perceptions of participation in Athena SWAN in medical science departments of a research-intensive university in Oxford, United Kingdom. METHODS: The study is based on the secondary analysis of data from two projects: 59 respondents to an anonymous online survey (42 women, 17 men) provided relevant free-text comments and, separately, 37 women participated in face-to-face narrative interviews. Free-text survey comments and narrative interviews were analysed thematically using constant comparison. RESULTS: Both women and men said that participation in Athena SWAN had brought about important structural and cultural changes, including increased support for women's careers, greater appreciation of caring responsibilities, and efforts to challenge discrimination and bias. Many said that these positive changes would not have happened without linkage of Athena SWAN to government research funding, while others thought there were unintended consequences. Concerns about the programme design and implementation included a perception that Athena SWAN has limited ability to address longstanding and entrenched power and pay imbalances, persisting lack of work-life balance in academic medicine, questions about the sustainability of positive changes, belief that achieving the award could become an end in itself, resentment about perceived positive discrimination, and perceptions that further structural and cultural changes were needed in the university and wider society. CONCLUSIONS: The findings from this study suggest that Athena SWAN has a positive impact in advancing gender equality, but there may be limits to how much it can improve gender equality without wider institutional and societal changes. To address the fundamental causes of gender inequality would require cultural change and welfare state policies incentivising men to increase their participation in unpaid work in the family, which is beyond the scope of higher education and research policy.

Maximising value from a United Kingdom Biomedical Research Centre: study protocol.

BACKGROUND: Biomedical Research Centres (BRCs) are partnerships between healthcare organisations and universities in England. Their mission is to generate novel treatments, technologies, diagnostics and other interventions that increase the country's international competitiveness, to rapidly translate these innovations into benefits for patients, and to improve efficiency and reduce waste in healthcare. As NIHR Oxford BRC (Oxford BRC) enters its third 5-year funding period, we seek to (1) apply the evidence base on how best to support the various partnerships in this large, multi-stakeholder research system and (2) research how these partnerships play out in a new, ambitious programme of translational research. METHODS: Organisational case study, informed by the principles of action research. A cross-cutting theme, 'Partnerships for Health, Wealth and Innovation' has been established with multiple sub-themes (drug development, device development, business support and commercialisation, research methodology and statistics, health economics, bioethics, patient and public involvement and engagement, knowledge translation, and education and training) to support individual BRC research themes and generate cross-theme learning. The 'Partnerships' theme will support the BRC's goals by facilitating six types of partnership (with patients and citizens, clinical services, industry, across the NIHR infrastructure, across academic disciplines, and with policymakers and payers) through a range of engagement platforms and activities. We will develop a longitudinal progress narrative centred around exemplar case studies, and apply theoretical models from innovation studies (Triple Helix), sociology of science (Mode 2 knowledge production) and business studies (Value Co-creation). Data sources will be the empirical research studies within individual BRC research themes (who will apply separately for NHS ethics approval), plus documentary analysis and interviews and ethnography with research stakeholders. This study has received ethics clearance through the University of Oxford Central University Research Ethics Committee. DISCUSSION: We anticipate that this work will add significant value to Oxford BRC. We predict accelerated knowledge translation; closer alignment of the innovation process with patient priorities and the principles of responsible, ethical research; reduction in research waste; new knowledge about the governance and activities of multi-stakeholder research partnerships and the contexts in which they operate; and capacity-building that reflects the future needs of a rapidly-evolving health research system.

A global call for action to include gender in research impact assessment.

Global investment in biomedical research has grown significantly over the last decades, reaching approximately a quarter of a trillion US dollars in 2010. However, not all of this investment is distributed evenly by gender. It follows, arguably, that scarce research resources may not be optimally invested (by either not supporting the best science or by failing to investigate topics that benefit women and men equitably). Women across the world tend to be significantly underrepresented in research both as researchers and research participants, receive less research funding, and appear less frequently than men as authors on research publications. There is also some evidence that women are relatively disadvantaged as the beneficiaries of research, in terms of its health, societal and economic impacts. Historical gender biases may have created a path dependency that means that the research system and the impacts of research are biased towards male researchers and male beneficiaries, making it inherently difficult (though not impossible) to eliminate gender bias. In this commentary, we - a group of scholars and practitioners from Africa, America, Asia and Europe - argue that gender-sensitive research impact assessment could become a force for good in moving science policy and practice towards gender equity. Research impact assessment is the multidisciplinary field of scientific inquiry that examines the research process to maximise scientific, societal and economic returns on investment in research. It encompasses many theoretical and methodological approaches that can be used to investigate gender bias and recommend actions for change to maximise research impact. We offer a set of recommendations to research funders, research institutions and research evaluators who conduct impact assessment on how to include and strengthen analysis of gender equity in research impact assessment and issue a global call for action.

Organisational culture and post-merger integration in an academic health centre: a mixed-methods study.

BACKGROUND: Around the world, the last two decades have been characterised by an increase in the numbers of mergers between healthcare providers, including some of the most prestigious university hospitals and academic health centres. However, many mergers fail to bring the anticipated benefits, and successful post-merger integration in university hospitals and academic health centres is even harder to achieve. An increasing body of literature suggests that organisational culture affects the success of post-merger integration and academic-clinical collaboration. METHODS: This paper reports findings from a mixed-methods single-site study to examine 1) the perceptions of organisational culture in academic and clinical enterprises at one National Health Service (NHS) trust, and 2) the major cultural issues for its post-merger integration with another NHS trust and strategic partnership with a university. From the entire population of 72 clinician-scientists at one of the legacy NHS trusts, 38 (53%) completed a quantitative Competing Values Framework survey and 24 (33%) also provided qualitative responses. The survey was followed up by semi-structured interviews with six clinician-scientists and a group discussion including five senior managers. RESULTS: The cultures of two legacy NHS trusts differed and were primarily distinct from the culture of the academic enterprise. Major cultural issues were related to the relative size, influence, and history of the legacy NHS trusts, and the implications of these for respective identities, clinical services, and finances. Strategic partnership with a university served as an important ameliorating consideration in reaching trust merger. However, some aspects of university entrepreneurial culture are difficult to reconcile with the NHS service delivery model and may create tension. CONCLUSIONS: There are challenges in preserving a more desirable culture at one of the legacy NHS trusts, enhancing cultures in both legacy NHS trusts during their post-merger integration, and in aligning academic and clinical cultures following strategic partnership with a university. The seeds of success may be found in current best practice, good will, and a near identical ideal of the future preferred culture. Strong, fair leadership will be required both nationally and locally for the success of mergers and post-merger integration in university hospitals and academic health centres.

Implementation of collaborative governance in cross-sector innovation and education networks: evidence from the National Health Service in England.

BACKGROUND: Increasingly, health policy-makers and managers all over the world look for alternative forms of organisation and governance in order to add more value and quality to their health systems. In recent years, the central government in England mandated several cross-sector health initiatives based on collaborative governance arrangements. However, there is little empirical evidence that examines local implementation responses to such centrally-mandated collaborations. METHODS: Data from the national study of Health Innovation and Education Clusters (HIECs) are used to provide comprehensive empirical evidence about the implementation of collaborative governance arrangements in cross-sector health networks in England. The study employed a mixed-methods approach, integrating both quantitative and qualitative data from a national survey of the entire population of HIEC directors (N = 17; response rate = 100%), a group discussion with 7 HIEC directors, and 15 in-depth interviews with HIEC directors and chairs. RESULTS: The study provides a description and analysis of local implementation responses to the central government mandate to establish HIECs. The latter represent cross-sector health networks characterised by a vague mandate with the provision of a small amount of new resources. Our findings indicate that in the case of HIECs such a mandate resulted in the creation of rather fluid and informal partnerships, which over the period of three years made partial-to-full progress on governance activities and, in most cases, did not become self-sustaining without government funding. CONCLUSION: This study has produced valuable insights into the implementation responses in HIECs and possibly other cross-sector collaborations characterised by a vague mandate with the provision of a small amount of new resources. There is little evidence that local dominant coalitions appropriated the central HIEC mandate to their own ends. On the other hand, there is evidence of interpretation and implementation of the central mandate by HIEC leaders to serve their local needs. These findings augur well for Academic Health Science Networks, which pick up the mantle of large-scale, cross-sector collaborations for health and innovation. This study also highlights that a supportive policy environment and sufficient time would be crucial to the successful implementation of new cross-sector health collaborations.

Improving accountability through alignment: the role of academic health science centres and networks in England.

BACKGROUND: As in many countries around the world, there are high expectations on academic health science centres and networks in England to provide high-quality care, innovative research, and world-class education, while also supporting wealth creation and economic growth. Meeting these expectations increasingly depends on partnership working between university medical schools and teaching hospitals, as well as other healthcare providers. However, academic-clinical relationships in England are still characterised by the "unlinked partners" model, whereby universities and their partner teaching hospitals are neither fiscally nor structurally linked, creating bifurcating accountabilities to various government and public agencies. DISCUSSION: This article focuses on accountability relationships in universities and teaching hospitals, as well as other healthcare providers that form core constituent parts of academic health science centres and networks. The authors analyse accountability for the tripartite mission of patient care, research, and education, using a four-fold typology of accountability relationships, which distinguishes between hierarchical (bureaucratic) accountability, legal accountability, professional accountability, and political accountability. Examples from North West London suggest that a number of mechanisms can be used to improve accountability for the tripartite mission through alignment, but that the simple creation of academic health science centres and networks is probably not sufficient. SUMMARY: At the heart of the challenge for academic health science centres and networks is the separation of accountabilities for patient care, research, and education in different government departments. Given that a fundamental top-down system redesign is now extremely unlikely, local academic and clinical leaders face the challenge of aligning their institutions as a matter of priority in order to improve accountability for the tripartite mission from the bottom up. It remains to be seen which alignment mechanisms are most effective, and whether they are strong enough to counter the separation of accountabilities for the tripartite mission at the national level, the on-going structural fragmentation of the health system in England, and the unprecedented financial challenges that it faces. Future research should focus on determining the comparative effectiveness of different alignment mechanisms, developing standardised metrics and key performance indicators, evaluating and assessing academic health science centres and networks, and empirically addressing leadership issues.

NIHR Race Equality Framework: development of a tool for addressing racial equality in public involvement.

BACKGROUND: While there has been a long recognition of the importance of race equality in health and care research, there is a lack of sustained action among research funding and research performing organisations to address racial equality in public involvement. This paper describes how the UK's National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) convened a Race Equality Public Action Group (REPAG), which co-developed with public contributors and stakeholders a Race Equality Framework - a tool for addressing racial equality in public involvement. METHODS: The REPAG, through meetings and discussions, defined the focus of the Framework, and developed an initial draft of the Framework. Public contributors identified the need for broader consultation with other public members. Three community consultation events with a total of 59 members of Black African-, Asian- and Caribbean-heritage communities were held to seek their views on health and care research generally and on the draft Framework specifically. The draft Framework was modified and piloted among 16 organisations delivering health and care research. Following feedback from the pilot, the Framework was modified and prepared for publication. RESULTS: The Framework is designed as a self-assessment tool comprised of 50 questions pertaining to five domains of organisational activity: 1) individual responsibility, 2) leadership, 3) public partnerships, 4) recruitment, and 5) systems and processes. The questions were co-designed with REPAG public members and provide key concepts and elements of good practice that organisations should consider and address on their path to achieving racial competence. The accompanying materials provide implementation guidance with 20 detailed steps, case studies of actions taken in seven pilot organisations, and links to additional resources. The pilot demonstrated the feasibility of conducting a meaningful self-assessment over a period of three months and the usefulness of the results for developing longer-term action plans. CONCLUSION: The Framework represents the first self-assessment tool for addressing racial equality in public involvement. Co-design with REPAG public members enhanced its authenticity and practicality. Organisations in the field of health and care research and any other organisations that use partnerships with the public are encouraged to adopt the Framework.

For a long time, race equality within research has not been a priority. To address this the NIHR created a group to come up with solutions to tackle this ­ the Race Equality Public Action Group. Recognising the need to help research organisations with how they involved members of the public from diverse groups, the Race Equality Framework was born. The Race Equality Framework was devised to help organisations become more inclusive, develop better links with diverse communities and make their work more equitable.Consultation with members of the public from Black African-, Asian- and Caribbean-heritage communities were held and were essential in developing the Framework. Sixteen organisations who are involved in health and care research were recruited as pilot partners. They worked through the Framework and provided further feedback and input.The final product is a self-assessment tool which comprises of 50 questions across five domains. These domains are: 1) individual responsibility, 2) leadership, 3) public partnerships, 4) recruitment, and 5) systems and processes. The questions are designed to promote reflection and improve organisational good practice.This is the first tool of its kind, and we recommend its use for health and care research organisations that work closely and develop partnerships with members of the public.