ArticleHealth research policy and systems2026
Developing health research capacity and capability in underserved geographies: a case study from a new medical school.
Article in Health research policy and systems, 2026. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Not yet cited in PubMed.
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
0 citing papers in PubMed.
No citing paper in PubMed yet.
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
3 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundResearch-active healthcare institutions are associated with improved patient outcomes and staff satisfaction. However, research funding in the United Kingdom remains disproportionately concentrated in established academic centres, limiting opportunities for newer institutions - often located in regions with greater health need - to develop research capacity. This entrenches health inequalities and restricts the pipeline of clinical researchers in underserved areas.
methodsWe used a case study methodology to explore how one new United Kingdom medical school, situated within a teaching-focused university and region of relative socioeconomic disadvantage, built research capacity and supervisory infrastructure from the ground up. Drawing on internal expertise and infrastructure, strategic partnerships and national funding schemes, we examined the structural enablers and barriers encountered in establishing a locally relevant research ecosystem.
resultsA phased approach to capacity building was employed, starting with internal resources and strategic collaborations. Supervisory infrastructure was developed through networked partnerships, enabling undergraduate and postgraduate research opportunities. The creation of thematic research groups evolved into recognized research centres. This foundation enabled successful bids for competitive external funding, including undergraduate and postgraduate research schemes, which in turn developed research capacity. We highlight how equitable access to research opportunities - particularly for students from widening participation backgrounds - was embedded within the curriculum and supported by funded placements. Our experience demonstrates that early, targeted investment in research infrastructure, even in settings with low baseline research activity, can generate sustainable capacity, increase participation and reduce regional disparities in research engagement.
conclusionsTo promote equity in research funding and reduce health inequalities, national funding bodies should adopt more inclusive investment strategies that actively support emerging centres. Structural reform is needed to ensure that funding mechanisms do not solely reward existing capacity but also foster its development in underserved regions. Our findings offer a scalable model for building sustainable research ecosystems in new or underfunded centres, aligned with local health needs and population outcomes.
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.