Irish funder guidance increased searching for, and uptake of, core outcome sets.

OBJECTIVES: Assess the impact of the Health Research Board (HRB) Ireland guidance on the uptake of core outcome sets (COSs). STUDY DESIGN AND SETTING: (1) Information on COS use, searching of the Core Outcome Measures in Effectiveness Trials (COMET) database, and rationale for outcome selection were extracted from HRB funding applications (2) COMET was searched for relevant COS availability at the time of application or developed since (3) principal investigator choices were explored through online surveys. RESULTS: Out of 187 funding applications, 44% (n = 82) searched the COMET database, and 13% (n = 11) of those found a relevant COS to inform their outcomes. Four applicants proposed COS development. However, 84% (n = 156) of applications had no relevant COS available at the time of submission, as identified by subsequent author COMET search. Among 84 principal investigators who participated in the surveys, 10 (12%) found and used a COS and 19 (42%) of the 45 respondents who did not have reference to COMET had searched the COMET database. A new question in the application form prompted a rise in those reporting a search of the COMET database from 6% to 99%. CONCLUSION: The study found low COS uptake in funding applications, but a new application question prompted an increase in reporting searches of the COMET database. Funder guidance promoted COS awareness and use, but more efforts are needed to facilitate COS development and adoption in clinical research.

How an international research funder's forum developed guiding principles to ensure value and reduce waste in research.

Background: When health-related research funding agencies choose to fund research, they balance a number of competing issues: costs, stakeholder views and potential benefits. The REWARD Alliance, and the related Lancet-REWARD Campaign, question whether those decisions are yielding all the value they could. Methods: A group of health-related research funding agencies, organisations that represent health-related research funding agencies and those that inform and set health-related-research funding policy from around the world have come together since 2016 to share, learn, collaborate and influence emerging practice. This group meets under the name of the Ensuring Value in Research Funders' Forum (EViR Funders' Forum). The EViR Funders' Forum worked together to develop a set of ten Guiding Principles, that if funders adhered to would reduce research waste and ensure value in research. Results: The EViR Funders' Forum has previously agreed and published a Consensus Statement. The Forum has agreed on a set of ten Guiding Principles to help health-research funders to maximise the value of research by ensuring that: research priorities are justifiable; the design, conduct and analysis of research minimise bias; regulation and management are proportionate to risks; methods and findings are accessible in full; and findings are appropriately and effectively disseminated and used. Conclusions: When setting research funding policy, we must balance multiple stakeholders' needs and expectations. When funders do this well, they maximise the probability of benefits to society from the research they support - when funders do this badly, they passively allow or actively contribute to research waste. These challenges must be resolved by funders either working together or in conjunction with other actors in the research ecosystem.

Priorities for future research on reducing and stopping psychiatric medicines using a James Lind Alliance priority setting partnership: The PROTECT study protocol.

Background: There is a growing number of service users looking to discontinue use of psychiatric medicines. Tapering is the recommended approach for reducing and/or discontinuing the use of psychiatric medicines. This involves gradually reducing the dose over time to minimise the potential for withdrawal symptoms. However, many uncertainties exist regarding the process of reducing and stopping psychiatric medicines. This study will use a James Lind Alliance Priority Setting Partnership to determine the Top 10 unanswered questions and uncertainties about reducing and stopping psychiatric medicines. Methods : The Priority Setting Partnership will be conducted using the James Lind Alliance methodology. It will involve seven stages: (i) creating an international Steering Group of representatives from key stakeholder groups that will include people with lived experience of taking and/or stopping psychiatric medicines, family members, carers/supporters and healthcare professionals, and identifying potential partners to support key activities (e.g. dissemination); (ii) gathering uncertainties about reducing and stopping psychiatric medicines from key stakeholders using an online survey; (iii) data processing and summarising the survey responses; (iv) checking the summary questions against existing evidence and verifying uncertainties; (v) shortlisting the questions using a second online survey; (vi) determining the Top 10 research questions through an online prioritisation workshop; (vii) disseminating results. Conclusions : This study will use a Priority Setting Partnership to generate a Top 10 list of research questions and uncertainties about reducing and stopping psychiatric medicines. This list will help to guide future research and deliver responsive and strategic allocation of research resources, with a view to ultimately improving the future health and well-being of individuals who are taking psychiatric medicines.

Funders' responsibility to ensure value in research: a self-audit by the Health Research Board Ireland.

As a public funder of health research, the Health Research Board (HRB) Ireland has an obligation to manage its funds well and to maximise the value of the research that it funds. Ways in which research funding can be wasted have been examined by researchers over the years, and a seminal series on research waste was published in the Lancet in 2014. The series systematically analysed every step of the funding lifecycle in five major stages and made recommendations to various actors including research funders. Prompted by its participation in the Ensuring Value in Research Funders' Forum, between June and October 2019 the HRB undertook a self-audit against the 17 recommendations identified in the Lancet series. Key HRB staff collated relevant policies and practices regarding each recommendation and sub-recommendation and assessed the HRB's performance under each heading. The self-assessment reflects the state of HRB policies and practices in October 2019.  Of the 17 recommendations, five were found to be areas of strength and six were found to be areas of partial strength. Areas of strength reflect work over many years such as support for evidence synthesis, strong processes around award selection, driving research integrity and open data including an HRB-funded open publishing platform. Four recommendations were found to be areas for growth. These mostly revolve around real time reporting of study protocols and of ongoing funded research outside of clinical trials. Work is progressing to address some of these areas. Two were found not to apply to the HRB.