ArticlePloS one2021
Impacts of COVID-19 on clinical research in the UK: A multi-method qualitative case study.
Article in PloS one, 2021. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 24 papers, 1 of them a synthesis that pooled it.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
24 citing papers in PubMed, 1 synthesis or guideline pooled it, 35 citations in OpenAlex.
- A framework for seroepidemiologic investigations in future pandemics: insights from an evaluation of WHO's Unity Studies initiative.Health research policy and systems · 2023Pooled it
- Conservative versus liberal oxygenation targets in critically ill children: the Oxy-PICU RCT.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2026Trial
- E-Consent-a guide to maintain recruitment in clinical trials during the COVID-19 pandemic.Trials · 2022Trial
- Sustained and discontinued operational changes to ethics committees in the post-pandemic era: a qualitative study in Kenya.BMC medical ethics · 2026Article
- 'Hell No!'-Exploring Scepticism in UK Health Research Since COVID-19 Amongst Communities Who Have Been Labelled 'Underserved'.Sociology of health & illness · 2025Article
- Optimising cardiac surgery outcomes in people with diabetes: the OCTOPuS pilot feasibility study.Health technology assessment (Winchester, England) · 2025Article
- Health research versus the virus: strengthening systems, saving lives.Health research policy and systems · 2025Article
- COVID-19 Early Detection in Doctors and Healthcare Workers (CEDiD) study: a cohort study on the feasibility of wearable devices.BMJ open · 2025Observational
- Ethical issues and the role of the ethics committees during COVID-19 research in pandemic era: a focus on an Italian ethics committee.Frontiers in public health · 2025Article
- Article
- How does organisational culture facilitate uptake of home dialysis? An ethnographic study of kidney centres in England.BMJ open · 2024Article
- Approaches and experiences implementing remote, electronic consent at the Leeds Clinical Trials Research Unit.Trials · 2024Article
- Article
- Crisis of the Clinical Trials Staff Attrition After the COVID-19 Pandemic.JCO oncology practice · 2023Article
- Non-COVID-19 UK clinical trials and the COVID-19 pandemic: impact, challenges and possible solutions.Trials · 2023Article
- If Providing Best Care Means Being at the Cutting Edge of Research, Should It Be Implemented System-wide? Comment on "'We're Not Providing the Best Care If We Are Not on the Cutting Edge of Research': A Research Impact Evaluation at a Regional Australian Hospital and Health Service".International journal of health policy and management · 2023Article
- Learning from the challenges of undertaking an evaluation of a multi-partner housing support initiative delivered within a hospital setting.Public health in practice (Oxford, England) · 2022Article
- Are the Current Processes and Regulations Fit for Purpose to Deliver Novel Therapies During Pandemics? A Perspective on COVID-19 from the UK.Pharmaceutical medicine · 2022Article
- Saving millions of lives but some resources squandered: emerging lessons from health research system pandemic achievements and challenges.Health research policy and systems · 2022Article
- Conducting clinical research in the era of the COVID-19 pandemic: Challenges and lessons for Speech-Language Pathology and Audiology research.The South African journal of communication disorders = Die Suid-Afrikaanse tydskrif vir Kommunikasieafwykings · 2022Review
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
4 authors at 1 institution in 1 country.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundClinical research has been central to the global response to COVID-19, and the United Kingdom (UK), with its research system embedded within the National Health Service (NHS), has been singled out globally for the scale and speed of its COVID-19 research response. This paper explores the impacts of COVID-19 on clinical research in an NHS Trust and how the embedded research system was adapted and repurposed to support the COVID-19 response. METHODS AND
findingsUsing a multi-method qualitative case study of a research-intensive NHS Trust in London UK, we collected data through a questionnaire (n = 170) and semi-structured interviews (n = 24) with research staff working in four areas: research governance; research leadership; research delivery; and patient and public involvement. We also observed key NHS Trust research prioritisation meetings (40 hours) and PPI activity (4.5 hours) and analysed documents produced by the Trust and national organisation relating to COVID-19 research. Data were analysed for a descriptive account of the Trust's COVID-19 research response and research staff's experiences. Data were then analysed thematically. Our analysis identifies three core themes: centralisation; pace of work; and new (temporary) work practices. By centralising research prioritisation at both national and Trust levels, halting non-COVID-19 research and redeploying research staff, an increased pace in the setup and delivery of COVID-19-related research was possible. National and Trust-level responses also led to widescale changes in working practices by adapting protocols and developing local processes to maintain and deliver research. These were effective practical solutions borne out of necessity and point to how the research system was able to adapt to the requirements of the pandemic.
conclusionThe Trust and national COVID-19 response entailed a rapid large-scale reorganisation of research staff, research infrastructures and research priorities. The Trust's local processes that enabled them to enact national policy prioritising COVID-19 research worked well, especially in managing finite resources, and also demonstrate the importance and adaptability of the research workforce. Such findings are useful as we consider how to adapt our healthcare delivery and research practices both at the national and global level for the future. However, as the pandemic continues, research leaders and policymakers must also take into account the short and long term impact of COVID-19 prioritisation on non-COVID-19 health research and the toll of the emergency response on research staff.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.