Developing the evidence-base to inform policy on inclusive research design.

IF 2.9 3区 综合性期刊 Q1 MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES Royal Society Open Science Pub Date : 2025-03-19 eCollection Date: 2025-03-01 DOI:10.1098/rsos.241380
Stella A Child, Christina Mulligan, Ivan Pavlov, Simone Bryan, Leah Li, Rachel Louise Knowles
{"title":"Developing the evidence-base to inform policy on inclusive research design.","authors":"Stella A Child, Christina Mulligan, Ivan Pavlov, Simone Bryan, Leah Li, Rachel Louise Knowles","doi":"10.1098/rsos.241380","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>Considering diversity when designing and conducting research is fundamental to the responsible conduct of research and ensures that outputs from scientific research are reproducible, minimize bias and enable everyone within society the opportunity to benefit. Therefore, health and biomedical research should include consideration of diversity and inclusion in the way studies are designed and conducted. An evaluation of health researchers' approaches to diversity was undertaken to generate evidence to inform research policy development by the UK Medical Research Council (MRC). Seven hundred and seventy-two researchers responded to an anonymized public survey about diversity and inclusion in research design and 590 applications for research funding were evaluated. Fifty per cent of survey respondents undertaking human participant research reported taking diversity, usually age and sex, into account. Although 43% of animal researchers reported using females and males, only 28% of grant applications demonstrated this. Our findings demonstrate that many researchers do not routinely consider diversity when designing research. Furthermore, we identified a gap between what animal researchers reported doing and what was evident in funding applications. Informed by this analysis, MRC implemented a new policy requiring researchers to demonstrate how they embed diversity and inclusion in research design. This survey provides a benchmark for evaluating policy impact.</p>","PeriodicalId":21525,"journal":{"name":"Royal Society Open Science","volume":"12 3","pages":"241380"},"PeriodicalIF":2.9000,"publicationDate":"2025-03-19","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC11919494/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Royal Society Open Science","FirstCategoryId":"103","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1098/rsos.241380","RegionNum":3,"RegionCategory":"综合性期刊","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"2025/3/1 0:00:00","PubModel":"eCollection","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"MULTIDISCIPLINARY SCIENCES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

Abstract

Considering diversity when designing and conducting research is fundamental to the responsible conduct of research and ensures that outputs from scientific research are reproducible, minimize bias and enable everyone within society the opportunity to benefit. Therefore, health and biomedical research should include consideration of diversity and inclusion in the way studies are designed and conducted. An evaluation of health researchers' approaches to diversity was undertaken to generate evidence to inform research policy development by the UK Medical Research Council (MRC). Seven hundred and seventy-two researchers responded to an anonymized public survey about diversity and inclusion in research design and 590 applications for research funding were evaluated. Fifty per cent of survey respondents undertaking human participant research reported taking diversity, usually age and sex, into account. Although 43% of animal researchers reported using females and males, only 28% of grant applications demonstrated this. Our findings demonstrate that many researchers do not routinely consider diversity when designing research. Furthermore, we identified a gap between what animal researchers reported doing and what was evident in funding applications. Informed by this analysis, MRC implemented a new policy requiring researchers to demonstrate how they embed diversity and inclusion in research design. This survey provides a benchmark for evaluating policy impact.

Abstract Image

查看原文
分享 分享
微信好友 朋友圈 QQ好友 复制链接
本刊更多论文
发展证据基础,为包容性研究设计的政策提供信息。
在设计和开展研究时考虑多样性是负责任的研究行为的基础,并确保科学研究的产出是可重复的,最大限度地减少偏见,并使社会上的每个人都有机会受益。因此,卫生和生物医学研究应在设计和开展研究的方式中考虑多样性和包容性。英国医学研究理事会(MRC)对卫生研究人员的多样性方法进行了评估,以产生证据,为研究政策的制定提供信息。772名研究人员参与了一项关于研究设计多样性和包容性的匿名公众调查,并对590份研究基金申请进行了评估。在进行人类参与者研究的受访者中,有50%的人表示考虑了多样性,通常是年龄和性别。尽管43%的动物研究人员报告使用雌性和雄性,但只有28%的资助申请证明了这一点。我们的研究结果表明,许多研究人员在设计研究时通常不会考虑多样性。此外,我们还发现了动物研究人员报告的工作与资助申请中显而易见的工作之间的差距。根据这一分析,MRC实施了一项新政策,要求研究人员展示他们如何在研究设计中嵌入多样性和包容性。这项调查为评估政策影响提供了一个基准。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 去求助
来源期刊
Royal Society Open Science
Royal Society Open Science Multidisciplinary-Multidisciplinary
CiteScore
6.00
自引率
0.00%
发文量
508
审稿时长
14 weeks
期刊介绍: Royal Society Open Science is a new open journal publishing high-quality original research across the entire range of science on the basis of objective peer-review. The journal covers the entire range of science and mathematics and will allow the Society to publish all the high-quality work it receives without the usual restrictions on scope, length or impact.
期刊最新文献
A dynamical measure of algorithmically infused visibility. Chicks of cavity-nesting birds do not 'exercise' prior to fledging. A total evidence approach justifies taxonomic splitting of the endangered Pecos gambusia into three species. Do scarcity-related cues affect the sustained attentional performance of the poor and the rich differently? Eco-innovative dyeing of cotton with upcycled pineapple peel waste-derived natural dye.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
现在去查看 取消
×
提示
确定
0
微信
客服QQ
Book学术公众号 扫码关注我们
反馈
×
意见反馈
请填写您的意见或建议
请填写您的手机或邮箱
已复制链接
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
×
扫码分享
扫码分享
Book学术官方微信
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术
文献互助 智能选刊 最新文献 互助须知 联系我们:info@booksci.cn
Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。
Copyright © 2023 Book学术 All rights reserved.
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号 京ICP备2023020795号-1