Search

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. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

With over 5 million COVID-19 deaths at the time of writing, the response of research leaders was and is critical to developing treatments to control the global pandemic. As clinical research leaders urgently repurposed existing research programmes and resources towards the COVID-19 pandemic, there is an opportunity to reflect on practices observed in Biomedical Research Centre (BRC) settings. BRCs are partnerships between leading National Health Service organizations and universities in England conducting translational research for patient benefit funded by the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR). Oxford BRC-supported researchers have led the rapid set-up of numerous COVID-19 research studies at record speed with global impact. However, the specific contribution of BRCs to the COVID-19 pandemic in the literature is sparse. Firstly, we reflect on the strategic work of clinical research leaders, creating resilient NIHR research infrastructure to facilitate rapid COVID-19 research. Secondly, we discuss how COVID-19 rapid research exemplars supported by Oxford BRC illustrate "capacity", "readiness" and "capability" at an organizational and individual level to respond to the global pandemic. Rapid response research in turbulent environments requires strategic organizational leadership to create resilient infrastructure and resources. The rapid research exemplars from the Oxford BRC illustrate capability and capacity at an organizational and individual level in a dynamic environment to respond during the COVID-19 public health challenge. This response was underpinned by swift adaptation and repurposing of existing research resources and expertise by the Oxford BRC to deliver rapid research to address different aspects of COVID-19. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]

staniszewska s.h.&henderson l. (2005) Journal of Advanced Nursing49(5), 530–537Patients’ evaluations of the quality of care: influencing factors and the importance of engagementThis paper reports a study exploring the process of patient evaluation and identifying the factors which influence this.Patient experiences of health care have become a central focus for researchers, policymakers, clinicians and patient groups in many countries. While surveys of patient experiences have become increasingly common internationally, concerns about the validity of concepts such as satisfaction have cast doubt on the utility of their findings. These concerns reflect our limited understanding of patient evaluation and the factors that can influence this process.A qualitative design was adopted, using semi-structured interviews with a sample of outpatients in their homes in one county in England. In total, 41 patients participated in the study and were interviewed before their appointment. Of these patients, 37 were interviewed again after their appointment. Six of the latter were then re-interviewed 6 weeks after the appointment to explore whether evaluations had changed.Patient evaluation was influenced by a number of factors, including gratitude, faith, loyalty, luck and equity. The overall effect was to prompt positive evaluation, even when care was poor. These factors should be accounted for in the interpretation of patient experiences surveys. Patient experiences were further influenced by their sense of engagement with the system. A negative sense of engagement could have a major impact on the patient, resulting in disappointment or fear and a desire to leave the health care system, and in a negative evaluation of a specific aspect of care.Engagement may provide a more appropriate indicator of negative experience than dissatisfaction. The influence of these factors should be considered in future attempts to develop more sensitive and appropriate methods of eliciting patient experiences. [ABSTRACT FROM AUTHOR]