Research governance in England needs improvements to ensure participant and site confidentiality in healthcare workforce research.

IF 3.8 2区 医学 Q1 HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES
Justin Aunger, Jane Ferguson, Esra Alkim Karaagac, Tommer Spence, Jill Maben, Ashok Patnaik, Russell Mannion, Yingxi Zhao, Nathan Proudlove, Helen Bodenham-Chilton, Kieran Walshe
{"title":"Research governance in England needs improvements to ensure participant and site confidentiality in healthcare workforce research.","authors":"Justin Aunger, Jane Ferguson, Esra Alkim Karaagac, Tommer Spence, Jill Maben, Ashok Patnaik, Russell Mannion, Yingxi Zhao, Nathan Proudlove, Helen Bodenham-Chilton, Kieran Walshe","doi":"10.1186/s12961-026-01538-6","DOIUrl":null,"url":null,"abstract":"<p><p>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.</p>","PeriodicalId":12870,"journal":{"name":"Health Research Policy and Systems","volume":"24 1","pages":""},"PeriodicalIF":3.8000,"publicationDate":"2026-09-28","publicationTypes":"Journal Article","fieldsOfStudy":null,"isOpenAccess":false,"openAccessPdf":"https://www.ncbi.nlm.nih.gov/pmc/articles/PMC13617882/pdf/","citationCount":"0","resultStr":null,"platform":"Semanticscholar","paperid":null,"PeriodicalName":"Health Research Policy and Systems","FirstCategoryId":"3","ListUrlMain":"https://doi.org/10.1186/s12961-026-01538-6","RegionNum":2,"RegionCategory":"医学","ArticlePicture":[],"TitleCN":null,"AbstractTextCN":null,"PMCID":null,"EPubDate":"","PubModel":"","JCR":"Q1","JCRName":"HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES","Score":null,"Total":0}
引用次数: 0

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.

英国的研究治理需要改进,以确保医疗保健人力研究中的参与者和地点的保密性。
敏感的医疗保健人力研究依赖于参与工作人员和组织的可靠保密保证。然而,国家卫生服务(NHS)的研究治理过程甚至在招聘开始之前就可能危及这些保证,特别是通过现场文件、当地主要研究者(PI)要求、研究护照和投资组合报告等过程。这些风险对于检查组织敏感话题(如欺凌、直言不讳或患者安全问题)的研究尤其重要,在这些研究中,雇主的意识可能会减少参与或鼓励自我审查。从2026年3月起,卫生研究管理局对仅限工作人员的研究进行了改革,包括简化场地设置,降低场地能见度,以及减少对当地pi或远程研究护照的要求。然而,需要进一步的改革来更好地平衡透明度、监督和保密。潜在的改进包括用于敏感组织研究的专用路径、限制访问的投资组合报告,以及更集中的治理文档。未来的变化应该与研究人员和NHS研发部门共同设计,以保护机密性和提高研究生产力,同时保持道德标准和问责制。
本文章由计算机程序翻译,如有差异,请以英文原文为准。
求助全文
约1分钟内获得全文 求助全文
来源期刊
Health Research Policy and Systems
Health Research Policy and Systems HEALTH POLICY & SERVICES-
CiteScore
7.50
自引率
7.50%
发文量
124
审稿时长
27 weeks
期刊介绍: Health Research Policy and Systems is an Open Access, peer-reviewed, online journal that aims to provide a platform for the global research community to share their views, findings, insights and successes. Health Research Policy and Systems considers manuscripts that investigate the role of evidence-based health policy and health research systems in ensuring the efficient utilization and application of knowledge to improve health and health equity, especially in developing countries. Research is the foundation for improvements in public health. The problem is that people involved in different areas of research, together with managers and administrators in charge of research entities, do not communicate sufficiently with each other.
×
引用
GB/T 7714-2015
复制
MLA
复制
APA
复制
导出至
BibTeX EndNote RefMan NoteFirst NoteExpress
×
提示
您的信息不完整,为了账户安全,请先补充。
现在去补充
×
提示
您因"违规操作"
具体请查看互助需知
我知道了
×
提示
确定
请完成安全验证×
copy
已复制链接
快去分享给好友吧!
我知道了
右上角分享
点击右上角分享
0
联系我们:info@booksci.cn Book学术提供免费学术资源搜索服务,方便国内外学者检索中英文文献。致力于提供最便捷和优质的服务体验。 Copyright © 2023 布克学术 All rights reserved.
京ICP备2023020795号-1
ghs 京公网安备 11010802042870号
Book学术文献互助
Book学术文献互助群
群 号:604180095
Book学术官方微信
小红书