Understanding barriers and facilitators to palliative and end-of-life care research: a mixed method study of generalist and specialist health, social care, and research professionals.

BACKGROUND: Palliative care provision should be driven by high quality research evidence. However, there are barriers to conducting research. Most research attention focuses on potential patient barriers; staff and organisational issues that affect research involvement are underexplored. The aim of this research is to understand professional and organisational facilitators and barriers to conducting palliative care research. METHODS: A mixed methods study, using an open cross-sectional online survey, followed by working groups using nominal group techniques. Participants were professionals interested in palliative care research, working as generalist/specialist palliative care providers, or palliative care research staff across areas of North West England. Recruitment was via local health organisations, personal networks, and social media in 2022. Data were examined using descriptive statistics and content analysis. RESULTS: Participants (survey n = 293, working groups n = 20) were mainly from clinical settings (71%) with 45% nurses and 45% working more than 10 years in palliative care. 75% were not active in research but 73% indicated a desire to increase research involvement. Key barriers included lack of organisational research culture and capacity (including prioritisation and available time); research knowledge (including skills/expertise and funding opportunities); research infrastructure (including collaborative opportunities across multiple organisations and governance challenges); and patient and public perceptions of research (including vulnerabilities and burdens). Key facilitators included dedicated research staff, and active research groups, collaborations, and networking opportunities. CONCLUSIONS: Professionals working in palliative care are keen to be research active, but lack time, skills, and support to build research capabilities and collaborations. A shift in organisational culture is needed to enhance palliative care research capacity and collaborative opportunities across clinical and research settings.

Overcoming the Tropical Andes publication divide: Insights from local researchers on challenges and solutions.

The Tropical Andes, one of the world's most biodiverse regions, is vital for ecological research and conservation. However, while researchers in Bolivia, Ecuador, and Peru contribute significantly to scientific knowledge, their publication rates in academic journals have historically lagged behind neighboring nations. A multifaceted strategy was employed to understand and address the publication divide in the Tropical Andes region. This approach focused on regional researchers and consisted of a three-day workshop to improve scientific writing skills, offer publication insights, and equip researchers with tools to overcome obstacles. A series of surveys were also conducted to explore the challenges faced by local researchers and their proposed solutions, covering topics such as participant demographics, factors contributing to lower publication rates, personal barriers, proposed strategies for improving publications, specific topics of interest, participant satisfaction, most valuable workshop topics, and future recommendations. The workshop had an overwhelming response, with over 500 interested participants registering in just a few days, mostly experienced professionals, highlighting the need for such initiatives in the region. About two-thirds had ready-to-publish materials, highlighting the potential impact of targeted interventions on unlocking untapped knowledge. The surveys revealed the challenges contributing to the publication divide, including insufficient training, cultural emphasis on economic development, language barriers, limited resource access, lack of institutional support, high publishing costs, and time and financial constraints. The most common personal barriers were insufficient knowledge and experience in the publication process, lack of self-confidence, and fears of rejection. Proposed solutions include conducting training workshops, fostering collaborative networks, improving resource accessibility, and an institutional and cultural shift that encourages publishing. Addressing challenges faced by experienced professionals in the Tropical Andes by understanding individual needs, fostering support, and demystifying the publication process offers a promising path to closing the publication divide and unlocking the region's valuable scientific contributions.

Randomised study of the effects of sense of entitlement and conflict of interest contrarianism on researcher decision-making to work with the alcohol industry.

BACKGROUND: It is well established that the tobacco industry used research funding as a deliberate tactic to subvert science. There has been little wider attention to how researchers think about accepting industry funding. We developed, then tested, hypotheses about two psychological constructs, namely, entitlement and conflict of interest contrarianism (CoI-C) among alcohol researchers who had previously received industry funding. METHODS: A mixed-methods pilot study involved construct and instrument development, followed by an online survey and nested 3-arm randomised trial. We randomly allocated alcohol industry funding recipients to one of three conditions. In two experimental conditions we asked participants questions to remind them (and thus increase the salience) of their sense of entitlement or CoI-C. We compared these groups with a control group who did not receive any reminder. The outcome was a composite measure of openness to working with the alcohol industry. RESULTS: 133 researchers were randomised of whom 79 completed the experiment. The posterior distribution over effect estimates revealed that there was a 94.8% probability that reminding researchers of their CoI-C led them to self-report being more receptive to industry funding, whereas the probability was 68.1% that reminding them of their sense of entitlement did so. Biomedical researchers reported being more open to working with industry than did psychosocial researchers. CONCLUSION: Holding contrarian views on conflict of interest could make researchers more open to working with industry. This study shows how it is possible to study researcher decision-making using quantitative experimental methods.

"The impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on research activities: A survey of the largest Italian academic community".

PURPOSE: The aim of the present work is to explore the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on research activities in a vast multidisciplinary academic community to identify the most critical issues. METHOD: To this purpose we planned a survey addressed to the entire academic research staff at "Sapienza" University of Rome, which represents the largest Italian academic community. A questionnaire consisting of both open and closed-ended questions was delivered to 4118 individuals in April 2021. RESULTS: A total of 544 responses were collected. All academic roles were sufficiently represented in the study cohort. The median number of critical issues experienced by academic research staff was three. Among these, the three most frequently reported were related to: "Access to libraries / laboratories / research sites" (21.9%), "Limitation to stay abroad / study / research periods" (17.6%), "Progress of experimental work" (14.7%), with variable prevalence according to academic position and gender. Older subjects reported issues with "Projects' financial reporting" and "Expiration of acquired consumable material more frequently". The most common critical aspects reported in relation to the economic burden were: being "Unable to allocate funds" (31.4%), a "Reduction in clinical and scientific activity" (26.3%) and experiencing "Increased expenses (comprising private costs)" (21.2%) with no differences between genders. Researchers in Applied Sciences and Natural Sciences reported a higher frequency of problems in clinical and scientific activities, whereas increased expenses were reported also by researchers operating in the Humanities field. As a possible solution aimed at improving these issues, most subjects, especially those aged >45 years, indicated "Economic aid" (22.6%), "Reduction in bureaucracy" (19.9%) or "Enhancement of the scientific and clinical activities", whereas those aged ≤45 years felt that an increased duration and better access to PhD programs were to be prioritized. CONCLUSION: Our findings highlight the most critical issues related to research activities during the COVID-19 pandemic in a large academic community. The information achieved may be useful to identify researchers' needs and to design appropriate policies aimed at preparing research institutions for unexpected catastrophic events and limiting the negative impact on academic research activities.

The gap that Matilda will bridge: a look at the Colombian case.

Objective: To determine gender gaps in Emeritus researchers in Colombia. Methods: Oaxaca-Blinder-Kitakagwa decomposition model, correcting the sample selection bias with the inclusion of Mills' inverse ratio (Heckman's Lambda) through an ordered probit model. Data: Information available in the ScienTI Platform - Colombia during the period 2015-2021. Results: The results show that the gender gap between female and male researchers is 5.8%. To achieve Emeritus status, one must be over 65 years old, and the possibility of achieving Emeritus status is 5.1% higher for female researchers than for their male counterparts. These differences can be explained by the time constraints that female researchers face in being productive, as they spend more time than male researchers on caregiving responsibilities, either due to motherhood or the care of other dependent family members. Conclusions: The results obtained allow us to affirm that there is a gender gap in scientific research in Colombia in the Emeritus research category in the calls for proposals for the period 2015-2021. Moreover, the existing gap cannot be explained by factors associated with attributes of education and academic productivity that are part of the regulatory requirements, insofar as not being explained by them, it evidences the existence of discrimination against women researchers to access the highest research category.

Postdoctoral T32 training is correlated with obtaining an academic primarily research faculty position.

The mission of NIH-sponsored institutional training programs such as the T32 is to provide strong research and career training for early career scientists. One of the main avenues to pursuing health-related research is becoming research faculty at an academic institution. It is therefore important to know whether these programs are succeeding in this mission, or, if barriers exist that prevent trainees from pursuing these careers. Our institution currently trains ~ 2400 post-doctoral scholars per year, approximately 5% of whom are enrolled in one of our 33 T32 programs. In this study, we 1) compare the proximal professional career trajectories of T32 trainees with non-T32 trainees at our institution, 2) compare proximal career trajectories of trainees in a subset of cardiovascular T32 programs based on their previous training backgrounds, and 3) survey past and current T32 trainees in a subset of cardiovascular T32 programs about the barriers and enablers they experienced to pursuing research-oriented careers. We find that former T32 trainees are significantly more likely to attain appointments as primarily research faculty members, compared to other trainees. Trainees report a perceived lack of stability, the paucity of open positions, and the 'publish or perish' mentality of academia as the top barriers to pursuing careers in academia. However, they were still more likely to choose research over clinical careers after participating in a dedicated T32 program. Our results support the conclusion that structured training programs strengthen the pipeline of young scientists pursuing careers in academic research, including those from underrepresented backgrounds. However, T32 postdoctoral researchers are held back from pursuing academic careers by a perceived lack of stability and high competition for faculty positions.

Perspectives of researchers, science policy makers and research ethics committee members on the feedback of individual genetic research findings in African genomics research.

BACKGROUND: Genetic research can yield information that is unrelated to the study's objectives but may be of clinical or personal interest to study participants. There is an emerging but controversial responsibility to return some genetic research results, however there is little evidence available about the views of genomic researchers and others on the African continent. METHODS: We conducted a continental survey to solicit perspectives of researchers, science policy makers and research ethics committee members on the feedback of individual genetic research findings in African genomics research. RESULTS: A total of 110 persons participated in the survey with 51 complete and 59 incomplete surveys received. Data was summarised using descriptive analysis. Overall, our respondents believed that individual genetic research results that are clinically actionable should be returned to study participants apparently because participants have a right to know things about their health, and it might also be a means for research participation to be recognized. Nonetheless, there is a need for development of precise guidance on how to return individual genetic research findings in African genomics research. DISCUSSION: Participants should receive information that could promote a healthier lifestyle; only clinically actionable findings should be returned, and participants should receive all important information that is directly relevant to their health. Nevertheless, detailed guidelines should inform what ought to be returned. H3Africa guidelines stipulate that it is generally considered good practice for researchers to feedback general study results, but there is no consensus about whether individual genomic study results should also be fed back. The decision on what individual results to feedback, if any, is very challenging and the specific context is important to make an appropriate determination.

Change in Patient Enrollment After Site Principal Investigator Turnover in Surgical Clinical Trials.

This cohort study examines the association of principal investigator (PI) turnover with patient enrollment in surgical clinical trials.

Reflections on co-managing investigative praxis in the context of a health emergency. / Reflexões sobre práxis investigativa cogestora em contexto de emergência sanitária.

This article deals with the interest of the scientific field in systematizing the co-management investigative praxis, in a health emergency scenario, based on the analysis of a research with a multicentric qualitative approach, using the framework of the Support Research and the analysis of critical hermeneutics. As a result, it was identified that the creation of a map guide contributed as a guiding document, aiming at organizing different techniques for the organization and formation of field researchers, as well as an instrument of data analysis. The training of researchers for the theoretical framework of Support Research, as well as their co-management and involvement in the different stages of research, proved to be a differential for the production of subjects and collectives with investigative praxis, allowing a dialogic exchange between coordinators and researchers and regular sharing of the results. It is concluded that the way in which the methodology was proposed, allowed the expansion of the reflective capacity and understanding of reality, contributing to the formation of researchers as active and critical subjects in the process of data collection, analysis and discussion, encouraging sensitive and attentive actions while seeking to identify the particularities of each context.

O artigo trata do interesse do campo científico em sistematizar a práxis investigativa cogestora em cenário de emergência sanitária a partir da análise de uma pesquisa de abordagem qualitativa multicêntrica, valendo-se do referencial da pesquisa-apoio e da análise da hermenêutica critica. Como resultados, identificou-se que a elaboração de um guia-mapa contribuiu como documento norteador, com o objetivo de organizar diferentes técnicas para a preparação e formação dos pesquisadores de campo, também como instrumento de análise dos dados. A formação de pesquisadores para o referencial teórico da pesquisa-apoio, assim como a cogestão e a implicação deles nas diferentes etapas da pesquisa, mostrou-se como diferencial para produção de sujeitos e coletivos com a práxis investigativa, permitindo a troca dialógica dentre coordenadores e pesquisadores e o compartilhamento regular dos resultados. Conclui-se que a forma como a metodologia foi proposta possibilitou a ampliação da capacidade reflexiva e de compreensão sobre a realidade, contribuindo para a formação de pesquisadores como sujeitos ativos e críticos no processo de coleta, análise e discussão dos dados, incentivando a atuação sensível e atenta ao mesmo tempo em que buscou identificar as particularidades de cada contexto.

Trajectories of biomedical research leading to Nobel Prize-winning discoveries.

Significant advancements in public health come from scientific discoveries, but more are needed to meet the ever-growing societal needs. Examining the best practices of outstanding scientists may help develop future researchers and lead to more discoveries. This study compared the comprehensive work of 49 Nobel laureates in Physiology or Medicine from 2000 to 2019 to a matched control of National Institutes of Health (NIH)-funded biomedical investigators. Our unique data set, comprising 11,737 publications, 571 US patents, and 1693 NIH research awards produced by pre-Nobel laureates, was compared to a similar data set of control researchers. Compared to control researchers, pre-Nobel laureates produce significantly more publications annually (median = 5.66; interquartile range [IQR] = 5.16); significantly fewer coauthors per publication (median = 3.32; IQR = 1.95); consistently higher Journal Impact Factor publications (median = 12.04; IQR = 6.83); and substantially more patents per researcher (median = 5; IQR = 14). Such differences arose from nearly identical cumulative NIH award budgets of pre-Nobel laureates (median $25.3 M) and control researchers. Nobel laureates are neither hyper-prolific (>72 papers per year) nor hyper-funded (>$100 M cumulative). An academic age-specific trajectory graph allows aspiring researchers to compare their productivity and collaboration patterns to those of pre-Nobel laureates.