Translational researchers' training and development needs, preferences, and barriers: A survey in a National Institute for Health Research Biomedical Research Centre in the United Kingdom.

The objective was to identify translational researchers' training and development needs, preferences, and barriers to attending training. This cross-sectional study involved an online questionnaire survey. The research population comprised a convenience sample of translational researchers and support staff (N = 798) affiliated with the National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. The response rate was 24%. Of 189 respondents, 114 were women (60%) and 75 were men (40%). The respondents were mainly research scientists (31%), medical doctors and dentists (17%), and research nurses and midwives (16%). Many of the respondents had attended at least one training course in the last year (68%). Training in statistics and data analysis was the most common training received (20%). Leadership training was the most wanted training (25%). Morning was the most preferred time of training (60%). Half a day was the ideal duration of a training course (41%). The main teaching hospital site was the most preferred location of training (46%). An interactive workshop was the most favored delivery style of training (52%). Most common barriers to attending training were the lack of time (31%), work (21%) and clinical commitments (19%), and family and childcare responsibilities (14%). Some differences in training needs, preferences, and barriers were found by gender and role, though these were not statistically significant. Translational researchers want short, easily accessible, and interactive training sessions during the working day. The training needs, preferences, and barriers to attending training need to be considered while developing inclusive training programs in biomedical research settings.

Rapid research response to the COVID-19 pandemic: perspectives from a National Institute for Health Biomedical Research Centre.

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.

Evaluation of the Effectiveness of Digital Technology Interventions to Reduce Loneliness in Older Adults: Systematic Review and Meta-analysis.

BACKGROUND: Loneliness is a serious public health issue, and its burden is increasing in many countries. Loneliness affects social, physical, and mental health, and it is associated with multimorbidity and premature mortality. In addition to social interventions, a range of digital technology interventions (DTIs) are being used to tackle loneliness. However, there is limited evidence on the effectiveness of DTIs in reducing loneliness, especially in adults. The effectiveness of DTIs in reducing loneliness needs to be systematically assessed. OBJECTIVE: The objective of this study is to assess the effectiveness of DTIs in reducing loneliness in older adults. METHODS: We conducted electronic searches in PubMed, MEDLINE, CINAHL, Embase, and Web of Science for empirical studies published in English from January 1, 2010, to July 31, 2019. The study selection criteria included interventional studies that used any type of DTIs to reduce loneliness in adults (aged ≥18 years) with a minimum intervention duration of 3 months and follow-up measurements at least 3 months after the intervention. Two researchers independently screened articles and extracted data using the PICO (participant, intervention, comparator, and outcome) framework. The primary outcome measure was loneliness. Loneliness scores in both the intervention and control groups at baseline and at follow-up at 3, 4, 6, and 12 months after the intervention were extracted. Data were analyzed via narrative synthesis and meta-analysis using RevMan (The Cochrane Collaboration) software. RESULTS: A total of 6 studies were selected from 4939 screened articles. These studies included 1 before and after study and 5 clinical trials (4 randomized clinical trials and 1 quasi-experimental study). All of these studies enrolled a total of 646 participants (men: n=154, 23.8%; women: n=427, 66.1%; no gender information: n=65, 10.1%) with an average age of 73-78 years (SD 6-11). Five clinical trials were included in the meta-analysis, and by using the random effects model, standardized mean differences (SMDs) were calculated for each trial and pooled across studies at the 3-, 4-, and 6-month follow-ups. The overall effect estimates showed no statistically significant difference in the effectiveness of DTIs compared with that of usual care or non-DTIs at follow-up at 3 months (SMD 0.02; 95% CI -0.36 to 0.40; P=.92), 4 months (SMD -1.11; 95% CI -2.60 to 0.38; P=.14), and 6 months (SMD -0.11; 95% CI -0.54 to 0.32; P=.61). The quality of evidence was very low to moderate in these trials. CONCLUSIONS: Our meta-analysis shows no evidence supporting the effectiveness of DTIs in reducing loneliness in older adults. Future research may consider randomized controlled trials with larger sample sizes and longer durations for both the interventions and follow-ups. INTERNATIONAL REGISTERED REPORT IDENTIFIER (IRRID): RR2-10.1136/bmjopen-2019-032455.

Lessons from the pandemic on the value of research infrastructure.

The COVID-19 pandemic has shed a spotlight on the resilience of healthcare systems, and their ability to cope efficiently and effectively with unexpected crises. If we are to learn one economic lesson from the pandemic, arguably it is the perils of an overfocus on short-term allocative efficiency at the price of lack of capacity to deal with uncertain future challenges. In normal times, building spare capacity with 'option value' into health systems may seem inefficient, the costs potentially exceeding the benefits. Yet the fatal weakness of not doing so is that this can leave health systems highly constrained when dealing with unexpected, but ultimately inevitable, shocks-such as the COVID-19 pandemic. In this article, we argue that the pandemic has highlighted the potentially enormous option value of biomedical research infrastructure. We illustrate this with reference to COVID-19 response work supported by the United Kingdom National Institute for Health Research Oxford Biomedical Research Centre. As the world deals with the fallout from the most serious economic crisis since the Great Depression, pressure will soon come to review government expenditure, including research funding. Developing a framework to fully account for option value, and understanding the public appetite to pay for it, should allow us to be better prepared for the next emerging problem.

The COVID-19 pandemic: A pandemic of lockdown loneliness and the role of digital technology

The focus of this perspective is on lockdown loneliness, which we define as loneliness resulting from social disconnection as a result of enforced social distancing and lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic. We also explore the role of digital technology in tackling lockdown loneliness amid the pandemic. In this regard, we highlight and discuss a number of the key relevant issues: a description of lockdown loneliness, the burden of lockdown loneliness during the COVID-19 pandemic, characteristics of people who are more likely to be affected by lockdown loneliness, factors that could increase the risk of loneliness, lockdown loneliness as an important public health issue, tackling loneliness during the pandemic, digital technology tools for social connection and networking during the pandemic, assessment of digital technology tools from the end users' perspectives, and access to and use of digital technology for tackling lockdown loneliness during the COVID-19 pandemic. We suggest that the most disadvantaged and vulnerable people who are more prone to lockdown loneliness are provided with access to digital technology so that they can connect socially with their loved ones and others;this could reduce loneliness resulting from social distancing and lockdowns during the COVID-19 crisis. Nonetheless, some key issues such as access to and knowledge of digital technology tools must be considered. In addition, the involvement of all key stakeholders (family and friends, social care providers, and clinicians and health allied professionals) should be ensured. (PsycInfo Database Record (c) 2021 APA, all rights reserved)

The COVID-19 Pandemic: A Pandemic of Lockdown Loneliness and the Role of Digital Technology.

The focus of this perspective is on lockdown loneliness, which we define as loneliness resulting from social disconnection as a result of enforced social distancing and lockdowns during the COVID-19 pandemic. We also explore the role of digital technology in tackling lockdown loneliness amid the pandemic. In this regard, we highlight and discuss a number of the key relevant issues: a description of lockdown loneliness, the burden of lockdown loneliness during the COVID-19 pandemic, characteristics of people who are more likely to be affected by lockdown loneliness, factors that could increase the risk of loneliness, lockdown loneliness as an important public health issue, tackling loneliness during the pandemic, digital technology tools for social connection and networking during the pandemic, assessment of digital technology tools from the end users' perspectives, and access to and use of digital technology for tackling lockdown loneliness during the COVID-19 pandemic. We suggest that the most disadvantaged and vulnerable people who are more prone to lockdown loneliness are provided with access to digital technology so that they can connect socially with their loved ones and others; this could reduce loneliness resulting from social distancing and lockdowns during the COVID-19 crisis. Nonetheless, some key issues such as access to and knowledge of digital technology tools must be considered. In addition, the involvement of all key stakeholders (family and friends, social care providers, and clinicians and health allied professionals) should be ensured.