ArticleBJPsych open2026
The impact paradox: mixed-methods evaluation of National Institute of Health and Care Research funding for intellectual disability research in the UK.
Article in BJPsych open, 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
9 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
backgroundPeople with intellectual disability experience substantial health inequities, including higher multimorbidity, increased healthcare utilisation and markedly reduced life expectancy. High-quality research is essential to address these disparities. The National Institute for Health and Care Research (NIHR) funded Research Delivery Network provides the infrastructure/expertise/support needed to deliver NIHR-funded studies, and supports studies funded by a non-commercial/industry partner. However, the effectiveness of NIHR-funded studies versus those supported in driving impactful intellectual disability research remains unclear.
aimsTo evaluate and compare the outcomes of NIHR-funded and supported intellectual disability research.
methodAll NIHR studies (funded/supported) relating to intellectual disability (2010-2020) were identified through systematic register searches. Primary outcomes included publication rates and impact on local, national and international clinical guidelines. Data collection was supplemented with a questionnaire to chief investigators and literature searches. Quantitative analyses examined associations between funding status, study design, publication and guideline impact, whereas qualitative responses explored implementation challenges.
resultsIn total, 88 projects were identified, and 42% (37/88) were NIHR-funded. Overall, 81% of studies generated at least one publication and 28% informed clinical guidelines. NIHR funding was not significantly associated with publication or guideline impact. Randomised controlled trials (RCTs) were significantly more likely to be published and more likely to influence non-UK national and international guidelines than non-RCTs. The amount of funding showed no association with impact. Qualitative findings highlighted funding constraints, staff capacity and stakeholder engagement as key determinants of implementation.
conclusionsNIHR-funded intellectual disability research was no more likely than NIHR-supported studies to result in publications or guideline impact.
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.