Conectar
To explore researchers’ experiences of funding processes, the effort and burden involved in applying for funding, obtaining funding and/or fulfilling reporting requirements with a UK health and social care research funder.
A cross-sectional online survey study with open (free-text) and closed questions (August to November 2021).
Researchers with experience of applying for/obtaining funding and/or experience of fulfilling reporting requirements for UK health and social care research funded between January 2018 and June 2021.
The survey was completed by 182 researchers, of which 176 had experience with applying for/obtaining funding, and 143 had experience with fulfilling reporting requirements during the timeframe. The majority of the 176 respondents (58%) completed between 7 and 13 key processes in order to submit an application and 69% felt that it was critically important to undertake these key processes. Respondents (n=143) reported submitting an average of 17 reports as part of research monitoring to a range of organisations (eg, funders, Higher Education Institutions). However, only 33% of respondents felt it was critically important to provide the requested reporting information to the different organisations. Thematic analysis of free-text questions on application and reporting identified themes relating to process inefficiencies including streamlining and alignment of systems, lack of understanding of processes including a need for improved communication and feedback from organisations with clear explanations about what information is needed, when and why, the support required by respondents and the time, effort and impact on workload and well-being.
Through this study, we were able to identify funding processes that are considered by some to be effortful, but necessary, as well as those that were perceived as unnecessary, complex and repetitive, and may waste some researchers time and effort and impact on well-being. Possible solutions to increase efficiency and enhance value in these processes were identified.
Background
Controlling high blood pressure (BP) continues to be a major concern because the associated complications can lead to an increased risk of heart, brain, and kidney disease. Those with hypertension, despite lifestyle and diet modifications and pharmacotherapy, defined as resistant hypertension, are at increased risk for further risk for morbidity and mortality. Understanding inflammation in this population may provide novel avenues for treatment.
Objectives
This study aimed to examine a broad range of cytokines in adults with cardiovascular disease and identify specific cytokines associated with resistant hypertension.
Methods
A secondary data analysis was conducted. The parent study included 156 adults with a history of myocardial infarction within the past 3–7 years and with a multiplex plasma analysis yielding a cytokine panel. A network analysis with lasso penalization for sparsity was performed to explore associations between cytokines and BP. Associated network centrality measures by cytokine were produced, and a community graph was extracted. A sensitivity analysis BP was also performed.
Results
Cytokines with larger node strength measures were sTNFR2 and CX3. The graphical network highlighted six cytokines strongly associated with resistant hypertension. Cytokines IL-29 and CCL3 were found to be negatively associated with resistant hypertension, whereas CXCL12, MMP3, sCD163, and sIL6Rb were positively associated with resistant hypertension.
Discussion
Understanding the network of associations through exploring oxidative stress and vascular inflammation may provide insight into treatment approaches for resistant hypertension. Background
Translation strategies are commonly used for qualitative interview data to bridge language barriers. Inconsistent translation of interviews can lead to conceptual inequivalence, where meanings of participants' experiences are distorted, threatening scientific rigor.
Objectives
Our objective is to describe a systematic method developed to analyze multilingual, qualitative interview data while maintaining the original language of the transcripts.
Methods
A literature review of translation strategies, cross-language, and multilingual qualitative research was conducted. Combined with criteria for qualitative content analysis and trustworthiness, the methodology was developed and used for a qualitative descriptive study.
Results
The study had interview data in both English and Spanish. The research team consisted of both native Spanish and English speakers, who were grouped based on language. Verbatim transcription of data occurred in the original languages. All codes were kept in English, allowing the research team to view the data set as a whole. Two researchers within each group coded each transcript independently before reaching a consensus. The entire research team discussed all transcripts, and finally, major themes were determined. Participants' quotes remained in the original language for publication, with an English translation included when needed.
Discussion
Analyzing transcripts in the original language brought forth cultural themes that otherwise may have been overlooked. This methodology promotes conceptual equivalence and trustworthiness that is paramount in cultural, linguistic, and social determinants of health research to advance health equity. 
FreshRSS 