Skip to main content

Category / Research news

Dementia toolkit to help patients, carers and healthcare workers – now live!

Knowledge Exchange and Impact Team, Research news

dementia

The aim of this Dementia Evidence Toolkit is to make all information publicly that is publicly available, available in a form that is clear and easy to understand for dementia patients, their families and unpaid carers as well as for staff working in health and social care. It will also benefit academics and those involved in decision-making both locally and nationally.

Launched at the beginning of August , the toolkit devised by Adelina Comas-Herrera, David McDaid, Professor Martin Knapp and colleagues, is the first of its kind globally, and is funded by the Economic and Social Research Council (ESRC). The Dementia Evidence Toolkit brings together more than 3,000 journal articles and 700 reviews of research studies in one place.

The toolkit is in the form of a comprehensive online database featuring the latest scientific evidence on what works in dementia care and treatment has been developed by the researchers at the Personal Social Services Research Unit, London School of Economics and Political Science (PSSRU at LSE).

Dementia is the fastest growing major cause of health-related disability across the world, and the health, social and economic impacts are increasing because of an ageing population. There are around 850,000 people in the UK with the condition, a figure expected to rise to 2 million by 2051. There are currently no cures for dementia which is associated with ongoing cognitive decline such as memory loss, problems with judgement and often some behavioural issues. Instead, the focus for healthcare services is on slowing down dementia progression using different care approaches.

Read the press release in full.

An update on Academy of Marketing funded research

BU research, PG research, Research news

The findings from current research conducted by Dr Julie Robson and Samreen Ashraf from the Faculty of Management were presented at the Academy of Marketing conference, Northumbria University recently.

The research, funded by the Academy of Marketing, uses concepts from behavioural economics to help understand how people perceive their pension and how they are likely to use their pension money in retirement. The study focuses on people originally from South Asia (India, Pakistan, Bangladesh etc.) but who are now living and working in the UK. A key question therefore is the role that culture has on the perception and use of pensions.

Given the pension reforms last year this research is timely as UK pension-holders aged 55 and over now have the freedom to use their pensions as they wish. Not surprisingly there has been much media speculation on how this money will be used – will it be blown on luxury goods (e.g. an expensive holiday or sports car?), used to pay off existing debt, given to children to help them get onto the property ladder or invested for later life?

As many retirees are known to have insufficient money for their retirement this research will be of interest to policymakers as many first generation South Asians living in the UK are now coming up to retirement age.

This research project runs to September 2016 when a final report will be issued to the Academy of Marketing.

Me and Julie picture

Widening Participation: a practice of hope

BU research, Centre for Excellence in Learning, Research news

warhol kruger clouds

Silver Clouds, Billy Kruger and Andy Warhol 1966

Our Fair Access Researchers have written a blog-post exploring the necessity of hope and solidarity for widening participation – particularly when any glimpse of a silver cloud seems very out of reach.

Drawing on the work of José Esteban Muñoz, our researchers see hope as a troubling but very necessary thing for those working to transform higher education:

“Practicing educated hope, participating in a mode of revolutionary consciousness, is not simply conforming to one group’s doxa at the expense of another’s…It is not about announcing the way things ought to be, but, instead, imagining what things could be. It is thinking beyond the narrative of what stands for the world today by seeing it as not enough” (from Duggan and Muñoz, 2009: 278).

One of the cornerstones of the Fair Access Research project is that it is through working and learning together that just such a hope can be practiced.

Developing the thinking that underpinned an article that suggested how research can be used to better enable and embed an institutional culture that works for social justice, Maggie and Alex are now researching how the ideas, rhetoric and policies of widening participation are being learnt in different organisations. To contribute to this research and share your learning, please do complete our survey for the sector to help understand this more. They will be going up to Liverpool over the coming weeks to do some fieldwork with colleagues in different organisations.

For more information about the Fair Access Research project please email the Principal InvestigatorsDr Vanessa Heaslip and Dr Clive Hunt.

Brexit and Bills- what it means for the HE Sector and Research.

BU research, policy, Research news

With a new Prime Minister, new Government department restructures, the second reading of the Higher Education and Research Bill and Brexit, there is a lot of change around the corner for universities and research.

Now that responsibility for higher education has been transferred to the Department for Education, whilst research and science are under the remit of the newly named Department for Business, Energy and Industrial Strategy, there are concerns that universities and research and science will become unaligned. The government has attempted to dilute some of these fears by ensuring that the Minister of State for Universities and Science, which is still held by Jo Johnson MP, jointly looks after both universities and science across both government departments.

In addition, leaving the European Union has already sparked concerns for the higher education sector, and in particular for research. On the 25th July Jo Johnson MP attended the European Science Open Forum in Manchester. He spoke of reports that UK participants are being asked not to lead or participate in Horizon 2020 project bids and went on to reassure that the UK remains an EU member during the 2-year renegotiation period, which includes the rights and obligations that derive from this. He also stated that the UK remains fully open to scientists and researchers from across the EU.

Concerns among the sector are still very much present, the Times Higher Education reported worries around possible changes to the way the European Research Council (ERC) could distribute funds. Currently, money is distributed on the basis of excellence, meaning the UK does comparably well in relation to other EU nations, however this could change after Brexit if the ERC decided to run a more redistributive approach- rather than excellence focused. Additionally, the Guardian found cases of British academics being asked to leave EU funded projects or to step down from leadership roles because they are considered a financial liability.

The second reading of the Higher Education and Research Bill also touched on the implications of leaving the EU. Jo Johnson MP said that he is working closely with Brussels, and is grateful to the commitment of his European counterparts that the UK will not be discriminated against. Justine Greening, the new Secretary of State for Education confirmed that the new UK Research and Innovation body (UKRI), which will see the research councils being grouped together, is critical in providing a unified voice to represent the interests of research and innovation when negotiating our new relationship with the EU.

The Higher Education and Research Bill has also prompted concerns around Innovate UK, with the Bill controversially proposing it is included in the new UKRI. This change has not gone unnoticed and the The House of Lords Science and Technology Committee recently ran an inquiry into the implications. The committee has informed the government that the plans to incorporate Innovate UK into UKRI are “wrong and endanger its important business-facing focus.” The inquiry argues that innovation is not a linear process and merging Innovate UK with UKRI runs the risk of linking innovation with science and research too formally. The inquiry is currently waiting for a reply from the Universities and Science Minister, Jo Johnson MP.

In addition, the outcome of Lord Stern’s review of the REF has been published. The report sets out 12 recommendations for the REF, but broadly supports the REF as a way to deliver quality-related research funding. You can view my previous blog post about this here.

Lord Stern’s REF Review- the outcome

BU research, policy, Research news

The outcome of Lord Stern’s independent review of the REF has been published. You can view the report here. The recommendations from the report are as follows.

1.       All research active staff should be returned in the REF (and allocated to a unit of assessment).

2.       Outputs should be submitted at Unit of Assessment level with a set average number per FTE but with flexibility for some faculty members to submit more and others less than the average (this hopes to shift the spotlight from the individual to the Unit of Assessment).

3.       Outputs should not be portable (to encourage a long- term approach to investment).

4.       Panels should continue to assess on the basis of peer review. However, metrics should be provided to support panel members in their assessment, and panels should be transparent about their use.

5.       Institutions should be given more flexibility to showcase their interdisciplinary and collaborative impacts by submitting ‘institutional’ level impact case studies, part of a new institutional level assessment(for a more strategic approach).

6.       Impact should be based on research of demonstrable quality. However, case studies could be linked to a research activity and a body of work as well as to a broad range of research outputs.

7.       Guidance on the REF should make it clear that impact case studies should not be narrowly interpreted, need not solely focus on socioeconomic impacts but should also include impact on government policy, on public engagement and understanding, on cultural life, on academic impacts outside the field, and impacts on teaching (the report recommends that research leading to impact on curricula and/ or pedagogy should be included).

8.       A new, institutional level Environment assessment should include an account of the institution’s future research environment strategy, a statement of how it supports high quality research and research-related activities, including its support for interdisciplinary and cross-institutional initiatives and impact. It should form part of the institutional assessment and should be assessed by a specialist, cross-disciplinary panel. (Institutional-level environment statement will allow for a more holistic view of the HEI).

9.       That individual Unit of Assessment environment statements are condensed, made complementary to the institutional level environment statement and include those key metrics on research intensity specific to the Unit of Assessment.

10.   Where possible, REF data and metrics should be open, standardised and combinable with other research funders’ data collection processes in order to streamline data collection requirements and reduce the cost of compiling and submitting information (to reduce burden and improve transparency).

11.   That Government, and UKRI, could make more strategic use of REF, to better understand the health of the UK research base, our research resources and areas of high potential for future development, and to build the case for strong investment in research in the UK (to help with the UKRI’s aim of being the strategic voice for research in the UK).

12.   Government should ensure that there is no increased administrative burden to Higher Education Institutions from interactions between the TEF and REF, and that they together strengthen the vital relationship between teaching and research in HEIs (the report notes that successful institutions do not separate teaching and research missions, a common dataset that can describe university research and teaching staff is recommended).

Research in the news: one hour of activity needed to offset harmful effects of sitting at a desk

BU research, Research communication, Research news

6_sport00146

BU’s Dr Erika Borkoles has provided expert assessment of research recently published in the Lancet, exploring the links between a sedentary lifestyle and moderate exercise.  This has been widely picked up by the media, including the New Scientist and the Guardian.  Below, she explains the research and its significance.

 

Many scientist in the field of sport, exercise and physical activity have been frustrated for years about why people don’t exercise, play sport, or enjoy daily physical activity, such as moderate intensity walking, even though those who are regularly active they feel the physical, social, and mental benefits.

One of the main problems was providing strong scientific evidence base for showing health benefits of being active. Research has been fraught with trying to work out, the frequency, intensity, lengths of time and the type of activity, whether it is aerobic, strengths based or a combination of the two. Then there was the issue of how the activity of daily living contributes to the structured physical activity’s effect on health.

More recently, research has shown that sedentariness is a separate consideration from being physical active. Sedentariness is now associated with sitting time, and prolonged sitting has been deemed to have significant health risk regardless of physical activity pattern.

The scientific data available is still contradictory, but the recent harmonised meta-analysis by Professor Ulf Ekelund and his colleagues published in the Lancet is providing a reasonably robust evidence that moderate physical activity of 60-75 minutes a day, every day can significantly reduce all-cause mortality risks. The unique point of this meta-analysis is that the authors acknowledge that sedentariness and being active co-exists in one’s life. It might be that someone has a very sedentary job (e.g. truck driver who will perhaps sit more than 8 hours a day) but if they can fit in regularly moderate intensity activity, their risk of dying is significantly reduced.

Interestingly, when the data was scrutinised, those who watched TV for 3 hours a day or more, being active only provided health benefits in the highest activity bands. If TV viewing exceeded more than 5 hours per day, moderate physical activity was not protective.

The good news is that Ekelund et al’s research is providing reasonable scientific evidence for being active is something we should all practice and would benefit from. The main message is from current research findings are: if you job requires prolonged sitting, try to break it up at least once an hour by walking about, making a cup of tea or walk outside for a couple of minutes, but also continue to build in at least 60 minutes of daily moderate activity in your life.

Dr Borkoles provided expert assessment of the Eklund et al’s research, which can be read here.

Nominations for the 2016 John Maddox Prize and London Media Workshop

BU research, Events, Research news

2016 John Maddox Prize for Standing up for Science
Nominations for the 2016 John Maddox Prize close on Monday, 1st August. 

Now in its fifth year, the prize recognises the work of an individual anywhere in the world who promotes sound science and evidence on a matter of public interest, facing difficulty or hostility in doing so. Details on how to nominate are online here: bit.ly/Maddox2016

The prize is a joint initiative of Nature, where Sir John was editor for 22 years; the Kohn Foundation, whose founder Sir Ralph Kohn was a personal friend of Sir John’s, particularly through their Fellowship of the Royal Society; and Sense About Science, where Sir John served as a trustee until his death in 2009. A passionate and tireless communicator and defender of science, Maddox engaged with difficult debates, inspiring others to do the same. As a writer and editor, he changed attitudes and perceptions, and strove for better understanding and appreciation of science throughout his long working life.

London media workshop

I also wanted to send a reminder that applications for the next Standing up for Science media workshop are now open. The workshop will be at the Francis Crick Institute, central London on Friday 16th September. This full day event is free and for early career researchers and scientists in all sciences, engineering and medicine (PhD students, post-docs or equivalent in first job). Here is the flyer and application form. 

 

Research Data Management and you!

BU research, data management, Publishing, Research news, Research Training

Research Data Management is a hot topic, especially when applying for grants. We all have our own strategies for managing our data as a product of research. Sometimes data management is in the form of a box or filing cabinet in a locked office, an external hard drive, purchased cloud storage or a hard drive. Whilst this approach is comfortable and familiar, it’s unlikely to comply with funder requirements neither currently nor in the future.

The Library has a created a guide that will help with navigating the diverse requirements of grant funding councils, writing data management plans and all its intricacies. The guide, ‘Research Data Management’ is available here .

We welcome your feedback about this resource, please contact rdm@bournemouth.ac.uk.

There is also a very informative youtube video Data Sharing and Management posted by NYU Health Sciences Library.

Midwifery-led antenatal care models

BU research, open access, Publishing, Research news, Uncategorized, writing

BU academics in CMMPH (Centre for Midwifery, Maternal & Perinal Health) have been working with colleagues across the UK in the so-called McTempo Collaboration on mapping the key characteristics of midwifery-led antenatal care models. This week BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth published our paper that brings this evidence together [1].  The lead author of the paper, Dr. Andrew Symon, is based at the University of Dundee his co-authors are based at the University of Stirling, UCLAN, Queen’s University, Belfast, NHS Education for Scotland and Bournemouth University.  The McTempo (Models of Care: The Effects on Maternal and Perinatal Outcomes) collaboration is a multi-disciplinary and multi-institutional research grouping established to explore and evaluate differentcare models used in maternity care.

Symon et al 2016 frameworkOur specific aim in this paper was to map the characteristics of antenatal care models tested in Randomised Controlled Trials (RCTs) to a new evidence-based framework for quality maternal and newborn care (QMNC) [2]. This offers the opportunity to identify systematically the characteristics of care delivery that may be generalizable across contexts, thereby enhancing implementation.  The paper concludes: “The QMNC framework facilitates assessment of the characteristics of antenatal care models. It is vital tounderstand all the characteristics of multi-faceted interventions such as care models; not only what is done but why itis done, by whom, and how this differed from the standard care package. By applying the QMNC framework we have established a foundation for future reports of intervention studies so that the characteristics of individual models can be evaluated, and the impact of any differences appraised.”

The paper has been published in an Open Access journal and is, therefore, easily available across the globe.

 

References:

  1. Symon, A., Pringle, J., Cheyne, H., Downe, S., Hundley, V., Lee, E., Lynn, F., McFadden, A., McNeill, J., Renfrew, M., Ross-Davie, M., van Teijlingen, E., Whitford, H, Alderdice, F. (2016) Midwifery-led antenatal care models: Mapping a systematic review to an evidence-based quality framework to identify key components and characteristics of care BMC Pregnancy & Childbirth 16: 168 http://www.biomedcentral.com/1471-2393/16/168
  2. Renfrew MJ, McFadden A, Bastos MH, Campbell J, Channon AA, Cheung NF, Audebert Delage Silva DR, Downe S, Kennedy HP, Malata A, et al. (2014) Midwifery and quality care: findings from a new evidence-informed framework for maternal and newborn care. The Lancet, 384(9948): 1129-1145.

Making the Most of Writing Week Part 2: Research grant applications – building a team

BU research, Events, Guidance, Research news, writing

Next week (25-29 July) is Writing Week in the Faculty of Health and Social Sciences. A whole week dedicated to freeing up some time for academic writing. So, how can you make the most of this opportunity? Over the next few days, we’ll give you some tips on ways to spend your Writing Week as well as letting you know which members of the BU Clinical Research Unit (BUCRU) team can help you and when they are available.

Writing Week is not just about writing papers – it also provides an opportunity to finally start thinking about that piece of research you’ve been dying to do. In BUCRU we have a wealth of expertise to support health research, and several members of our team are also members of the NIHR Research Design Service (more to come on that in a later blog). The next few posts cover our speciality subject – research grant applications.

Step 2 is thinking about your research team. You might have a great idea for a research project, but do you have the right people to ensure a strong, supportive team who can deliver the research? Depending on your research question, you might need a multi/interdisciplinary team of academics from different disciplines, clinicians, nurses, Allied Health Professionals etc. You may have a good network around you already, but what do you do if you don’t? Lisa Gale-Andrews is Clinical Research Co-ordinator in BUCRU, and can help facilitate research collaborations particularly with clinicians in the local health service and with academics across Faculties. Please contact Lisa (lgaleandrews@bournemouth.ac.uk) if you’re looking for contacts and for support in building your research team. She will be available all day Mon-Thurs during Writing Week if you’d like to pop in (R506).

There’s more to come on grant applications over the next few days including choosing a funder, research design, and the importance of patient and public involvement (PPI).

UKRO Conference Report – important EU funding updates

BU research, EU, Events, Funding opportunities, Guidance, international, Research news, Research Training

UKRO logoThe UK Research Office (UKRO) is the European office of the UK Research Councils. It delivers a subscription-based advisory service for research organisations (in the main UK HEIs) and provides National Contact Point services on behalf of the UK Government. UKRO’s mission is to maximise UK engagement in EU-funded research, innovation and higher education activities. One way UKRO supports this mission is through the annual conference.

The slides are publicly available via the UKRO website. To access further subscriber-only information, including events notifications and news, BU staff members can register today!

The 2016  UKRO Annual Conference took place at Glasgow ​Caledonian University in Glasgow on Thursday 30th June and Friday 1st July 2016.​​ Please follow the links below to access slides and other information from the event:

Conference Programme​​

​Biographies of Speakers​

Presentations:

Thursday 30 June 2016

Opening plenary session

Horizon 2020: Are We On the Path to Success?​
Mr Wolfgang Burtscher (DG RTD, Deputy Director General)

European Research Council: An Update and Future Directions​
Mr Theodore Papazoglou (ERCEA, Head of Unit, Support to the ERC Scientific Council)

Parallel sessions 1

A) Horizon 2020 Health Challenge: Zika, Ebola & Antimicrobial Resistance
Ms Line Matthiessen (DG RTD, Head of Unit, Fighting Infectious Diseases and Advancing Public Health)

B) Being Ethics Ready and Compliant
Ms Maria Filipa Ferraz De Oliveira (ERCEA, Head of Ethics Sector)

C) Horizon 2020 Funding for Research into Migration and Mobility​
Ms Elisabeth Lipiatou (DG RTD, Head of Unit, Open and Inclusive Societies)

Parallel sessions 2

A) Marie Skl​odowska-Curie Actions Reporting: IT’s That Time of the Year Again…
Ms Cathy Souto Enriques (REA, MSCA Project Advisor)

B) Funding Research for a Secure Society
​Mr Graham Willmott (DG HOME, Head of Unit, Innovation and Industry Security)​

Friday 1 July 2016

Open Innovation: The Future of EU Innovation Funding? Ideas for Creating a European Innovation Council
Ms Sophie Laurie (NERC, Associate Director of Innovation and Translation)​
Mr Matthew King (DG RTD, Head of Unit Open Innovation)​​

Parallel sessions 3

A) Open to the World: Co-Funded Calls and How it Works in Practice
Mr Diego Sammaritano (DG RTD, Policy Officer, R&I Cooperation with China)

B) Open Science: Opening Up Scientific Information in Horizon 2020
Ms Joy Davidson (Collaborative Research & Services Provision Manager, University of Glasgow)

Parallel sessions 4

ELO Profiles for the Future of EU Funding
Ms Angela Noble (University of Edinburgh, Manager – Europe)
Ms Philippa Shelton (University of the West of England, Bristol, Senior Research Business Development Manager)
Ms Kimberly Cornfield (UCL, Head of EU Proposal Management)​

Managing Intellectual Property in Horizon 2020​
Mr Jakub Ramocki (EU IPR Helpdesk, Intellectual Property Advisor)

If you would like to discuss potential EU funding activity, please contact Emily Cieciura, RKEO’s Research Facilitator: EU & International. To see related articles, just search for ‘UKRO’ on the BU Research blog.