ArticleHealth research policy and systems2026
Research governance in England needs improvements to ensure participant and site confidentiality in healthcare workforce research.
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
11 authors.
Funding
Abstract
Sensitive healthcare workforce research relies on credible assurances of confidentiality for participating staff and organizations. Yet, National Health Service (NHS) research governance processes can compromise these assurances even before recruitment begins, particularly through processes such as site documentation, local principal investigator (PI) requirements, research passports, and portfolio reporting. These risks are especially important for studies examining organizationally sensitive topics such as bullying, speaking up, or patient safety issues, where perceived employer awareness may reduce participation or encourage self-censorship. From March 2026, the Health Research Authority introduced reforms for staff-only studies, including streamlined site set-up, reduced site visibility, and fewer requirements for local PIs or research passports in remote studies. However, further changes are needed to better balance transparency, oversight and confidentiality. Potential improvements include dedicated pathways for sensitive organizational research, restricted-access portfolio reporting, and more centralized governance documentation. Future changes should be co-designed with researchers and NHS research and development departments to protect confidentiality and improve research productivity, while maintaining ethical standards and accountability.
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.