Article type
Year
Abstract
Background: Previous research has shown that more needs to be done to increase value and reduce waste in biomedical research. This paper focuses on research funders because they can require changes to research proposals to reduce waste.
Objectives: We explored:
1. how funders monitor and take steps to reduce waste in the research they support, including whether systematic reviews are used to inform future research; and
2. how they support methodological research (research on research).
Methods: We selected 11 national research funding agencies with a mixture of wide and more focused agendas. These included funders in the UK, Australia, Canada, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway. We searched for information on the agencies’ websites in 2015 and contacted the agencies to verify the information we had obtained.
Results: All funders except one (Danish funder) responded to our requests. The English National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) is the only research funding agency that requires applicants seeking funds for new primary research to refer to systematic reviews of existing research, making it clear why additional research is justified. Four funders require systematic reviews to show that new clinical trials are needed. A minority of funding agencies (6/11) require that full reports of the research they fund should be published. All funding agencies require registration of clinical trials before recruitment of patients. NIHR also requires registration of other study types, for example, systematic reviews in the PROSPERO database.
Conclusions: Our survey shows that information on processes used by research funding agencies to reduce waste and support methodological research and research infrastructure is generally not transparent or readily available, and that monitoring and management of waste has not yet been studied and addressed. Better governance processes, evaluation and monitoring mechanisms are required.
Objectives: We explored:
1. how funders monitor and take steps to reduce waste in the research they support, including whether systematic reviews are used to inform future research; and
2. how they support methodological research (research on research).
Methods: We selected 11 national research funding agencies with a mixture of wide and more focused agendas. These included funders in the UK, Australia, Canada, Germany, France, the Netherlands, Denmark and Norway. We searched for information on the agencies’ websites in 2015 and contacted the agencies to verify the information we had obtained.
Results: All funders except one (Danish funder) responded to our requests. The English National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) is the only research funding agency that requires applicants seeking funds for new primary research to refer to systematic reviews of existing research, making it clear why additional research is justified. Four funders require systematic reviews to show that new clinical trials are needed. A minority of funding agencies (6/11) require that full reports of the research they fund should be published. All funding agencies require registration of clinical trials before recruitment of patients. NIHR also requires registration of other study types, for example, systematic reviews in the PROSPERO database.
Conclusions: Our survey shows that information on processes used by research funding agencies to reduce waste and support methodological research and research infrastructure is generally not transparent or readily available, and that monitoring and management of waste has not yet been studied and addressed. Better governance processes, evaluation and monitoring mechanisms are required.