Useless garbage because these are just recommendations NOT THE CREATION OF PROTOCOLS.
Implementing the SRRR Taskforce Recommendations to Transform Stroke Recovery Research
Stroke
is the second biggest killer worldwide in people over 60 and
disproportionately affects people in resource-poor countries. Research
implementation over the past 25 years has successfully led to a number
of acute treatments that have dramatically improved survival and
outcomes for people with stroke.
High-quality research and consensus in methodological approaches to stroke recovery and rehabilitation research is now more vital than ever, to deliver successful evidence-based interventions that will enable an increasing number of stroke survivors to have a better life after stroke.
We know that many stroke survivors are not getting the post-acute care and support that they need, and a key part of our role to ensure this happens is to fund robust, game-changing research for implementation in healthcare policy and practice to support survivors’ recovery and help them rebuild their lives after stroke. As funders, we have a responsibility to spend our publicly donated funds very carefully, on high-quality research that leads to impact for patients.
These
recommendations are very helpful to funders who want to raise the
quality of research being funded. We can help ensure this by
implementing these new standards and recommendations in our guidance for
applicants, and in the peer review and assessment of research, to
enable us to make optimally informed funding decisions.
The recommendations that are most useful will depend on the focus and strategy of the funding body. For the UK Stroke Association, we fund mostly clinical research in the form of developmental studies, pilot studies and early-stage feasibility trials. The recommendations around intervention development, measurement in clinical trials, the recovery trial development framework and the measures of upper limb movement will be highly relevant for us to use to ensure we fund robust studies that make a difference to the lives of people with stroke. We expect these recommendations to help us address many of the key weaknesses that we currently see in research applications and will support the research community in improving the quality of their applications to help them win more funding for this crucial, under-funded area. The Canadian Partnership for Stroke Recovery (CPSR) funds preclinical, discovery research and clinical research including clinical trials and knowledge translation. The SRRR guidelines will help us to support high-quality research that is both strategic and translational.
The Stroke Foundation in Australia provides seed grants annually to build research capacity and fostering the current and next generation of leaders. These grants enable researchers to conduct pilot or feasibility studies that will be used to inform a larger nationally competitive grant submission. The SRRR recommendations, particularly in co-design, monitoring the intervention and reporting, will help us to ensure the projects we fund and provide the foundation data for success when competing for larger grants.
As
research funders, we strongly endorse the international collaborative
leadership taken by the SRRR taskforce in coming together and
establishing a united approach to raising the quality of stroke recovery
and rehabilitation research. However, we require further support from
the research community, whether as grant applicants, team leaders and
mentors, peer reviewers or funding panel members, to advocate for
adherence to these recommendations and ensure they are implementing them
in their own reviews, applications and in mentoring the next generation
of stroke researchers. The role of the funders will be critical in
ensuring clarity regarding our expectations for reviewers and panellists
to assist them in delivering continuity and consistency of review
outcomes. Funders represent the voice of those impacted by stroke, so
the involvement of consumers in research design and addressing a key gap
in stroke recovery knowledge is central to securing support for
research. As evidence-driven organizations, we produce qualitative and
quantitative reports demonstrating gaps in stroke knowledge, treatment
and care. Researchers should use these findings to target their research
to the areas which consumers feel are more important. But there is a
role for the research community too, to take personal responsibility and
ensure their own adherence to these new recommendations. Without a
general consensus to take this collective and personal responsibility as
a community, we will not be able to implement the changes that we know
are necessary to advance this field of research.
The
recommendations of the SRRR address many of the challenges and barriers
encountered at every grant funding panel in stroke research: the lack
of standardized terminology, methodology, poorly described
interventions, inconsistent outcome measures and timeframes, as well as
poorly evidenced and inconsistent approaches to develop, monitor and
report interventions. If we can encourage researchers to adopt a more
consistent approach, we can enhance the robustness of the overall output
of this field. Unfortunately, too many applications for funding
currently succumb to one or more of the aforementioned pitfalls. Panel
reviewers further compound the problem through their own lack of
awareness of these recommendations.
These recommendations can help funders enhance the ability of this research field to have a major impact on patient lives in the future – akin to the changes in practice delivered as a result of the successes in acute stroke research. We would like to see the SRRR recommendations being implemented by researchers in their grant writing, and by funders in their grant assessment, to ensure we can move forward into a new world where stroke recovery research is uniformly robust and making a significant difference to the quality of life of those living with stroke.
High-quality research and consensus in methodological approaches to stroke recovery and rehabilitation research is now more vital than ever, to deliver successful evidence-based interventions that will enable an increasing number of stroke survivors to have a better life after stroke.
We know that many stroke survivors are not getting the post-acute care and support that they need, and a key part of our role to ensure this happens is to fund robust, game-changing research for implementation in healthcare policy and practice to support survivors’ recovery and help them rebuild their lives after stroke. As funders, we have a responsibility to spend our publicly donated funds very carefully, on high-quality research that leads to impact for patients.
How the SRRR Recommendations are Useful to Funders
The recommendations that are most useful will depend on the focus and strategy of the funding body. For the UK Stroke Association, we fund mostly clinical research in the form of developmental studies, pilot studies and early-stage feasibility trials. The recommendations around intervention development, measurement in clinical trials, the recovery trial development framework and the measures of upper limb movement will be highly relevant for us to use to ensure we fund robust studies that make a difference to the lives of people with stroke. We expect these recommendations to help us address many of the key weaknesses that we currently see in research applications and will support the research community in improving the quality of their applications to help them win more funding for this crucial, under-funded area. The Canadian Partnership for Stroke Recovery (CPSR) funds preclinical, discovery research and clinical research including clinical trials and knowledge translation. The SRRR guidelines will help us to support high-quality research that is both strategic and translational.
The Stroke Foundation in Australia provides seed grants annually to build research capacity and fostering the current and next generation of leaders. These grants enable researchers to conduct pilot or feasibility studies that will be used to inform a larger nationally competitive grant submission. The SRRR recommendations, particularly in co-design, monitoring the intervention and reporting, will help us to ensure the projects we fund and provide the foundation data for success when competing for larger grants.
How Funders and Researchers Can Work More Closely Together in Future
The Barriers and facilitators for funders in supporting high-quality research
These recommendations can help funders enhance the ability of this research field to have a major impact on patient lives in the future – akin to the changes in practice delivered as a result of the successes in acute stroke research. We would like to see the SRRR recommendations being implemented by researchers in their grant writing, and by funders in their grant assessment, to ensure we can move forward into a new world where stroke recovery research is uniformly robust and making a significant difference to the quality of life of those living with stroke.
No comments:
Post a Comment