Suchergebnisse

Abstract
Introduction
Allocation of research funds relies on peer review to support funding decisions, and these processes can be susceptible to biases and inefficiencies. The aim of this work was to determine which past interventions to peer review and decision-making have worked to improve research funding practices, how they worked, and for whom.

Methods
Realist synthesis of peer-review publications and grey literature reporting interventions in peer review for research funding.

Results
We analysed 96 publications and 36 website sources. Sixty publications enabled us to extract stakeholder-specific context-mechanism-outcomes configurations (CMOCs) for 50 interventions, which formed the basis of our synthesis. Shorter applications, reviewer and applicant training, virtual funding panels, enhanced decision models, institutional submission quotas, applicant training in peer review and grant-writing reduced interrater variability, increased relevance of funded research, reduced time taken to write and review applications, promoted increased investment into innovation, and lowered cost of panels.

Conclusions
Reports of 50 interventions in different areas of peer review provide useful guidance on ways of solving common issues with the peer review process. Evidence of the broader impact of these interventions on the research ecosystem is still needed, and future research should aim to identify processes that consistently work to improve peer review across funders and research contexts.

Background: Clinical trials that assess the benefits and harms of an intervention do so by measuring and reporting outcomes. Inconsistent selection and diversity in the choice of outcomes make it challenging to directly compare interventions. To achieve an agreed core set of outcomes, a consensus methodology is recommended, comprising a web-based Delphi survey and a face-to-face consensus meeting. However, UK government regulations to control the pandemic prohibited plans for a face-to-face consensus meeting as part of the Core Rehabilitation Outcome Set for Single-Sided Deafness (CROSSSD) study. Objective: This study aims to evaluate the modifications made by the CROSSSD study team to achieve consensus using web-based methods, but with minimal deviation from the original study protocol. Methods: The study team worked with health care users and professionals to translate the planned face-to-face consensus meeting in a web-based format, preserving the key elements of the nominal group technique. A follow-up survey gathered evaluation feedback on the experiences of the 22 participating members. Feedback covered premeeting preparation, the process of facilitated discussions and voting, ability to contribute, and perceived fairness of the outcome. Results: Overall, 98% (53/54) of feedback responses agreed or strongly agreed with the statements given, indicating that the web-based meeting achieved its original goals of open discussion, debate, and voting to agree with a core outcome set for single-sided deafness. Hearing-impaired participants were fully engaged, but there were some methodological challenges. For the participants, challenges included building rapport, understanding, and delivering the tasks in hand. For the study team, challenges included the need for thorough preparation and management of the unpredictability of tasks on the day. Conclusions: Sharing our experiences and lessons learned can benefit future core outcome set developers. Overcoming the challenges of delivering a web-based consensus exercise in the face of the pandemic can be applied more generally to maximize inclusiveness, enhance geographical access, and reduce research costs.