Abstract:Background: It has long been noted that the chain from identification of need (research gap) to impact in the real world is both long and tortuous. This study aimed to contribute evidence about research ethics and governance arrangements and processes in the UK with a focus on: what works well; problems; impacts on delivery; and potential improvements. Methods: Online questionnaire widely distributed 20th May 2021, with request to forward to other interested parties. The survey closed on 18th June 2021. Questionnaire included closed and open questions related to demographics, role, study objectives. Results: Responses were received from 252 respondents, 68% based in universities 25% in the NHS. Research methods used by respondents included interviews/focus groups (64%); surveys/questionnaires (63%); and experimental/quasi experimental (57%). Respondents reported that participants in the research they conducted most commonly included: patients (91%); NHS staff (64%) and public (50%). Aspects of research ethics and governance reported to work well were: online centralised systems; confidence in rigorous, respected systems; and helpful staff. Problems with workload, frustration and delays were reported, related to overly bureaucratic, unclear, repetitive, inflexible and inconsistent processes. Disproportionality of requirements for low-risk studies was raised across all areas, with systems reported to be risk averse, defensive and taking little account of the risks associated with delaying or deterring research. Some requirements were reported to have unintended effects on inclusion and diversity, particularly impacting Patient and Public Involvement (PPI) and engagement processes. Existing processes and requirements were reported to cause stress and demoralisation, particularly as many researchers are employed on fixed term contracts. High negative impacts on research delivery were reported, in terms of timescales for completing studies, discouraging research particularly for clinicians and students, quality of outputs and costs. Suggested improvements related to system level changes / overall approach and specific refinements to existing processes. Conclusions: Consultation with those involved in Health Services Research in the UK revealed a picture of overwhelming and increasing bureaucracy, delays, costs and demoralisation related to gaining the approvals necessary to conduct research in the NHS. Suggestions for improvement across all three areas focused on reducing duplication and unnecessary paperwork/form filling and reaching a better balance between risks of harm through research and harms which occur because research to inform practice is delayed or deterred.

The value of health service-based research to health service organisations: a qualitative study with senior health service executives

Clinical research imperatives: principles and priorities from the perspective of Allied Health executives and managers

Getting evidence into clinical practice: an organisational behaviour perspective

Is bureaucracy being busted in research ethics and governance for health services research in the UK? Experiences and perspectives reported by stakeholders through an online survey

A thematic analysis of the role of the organisation in building allied health research capacity: a senior managers' perspective

A qualitative study of diverse providers' behaviour in response to commissioners, patients and innovators in England: research protocol

The health service perspective on determinants of success in allied health student research project collaborations: a qualitative study guided by the Consolidated Framework for Implementation Research

If health organisations and staff engage in research, does healthcare improve? Strengthening the evidence base through systematic reviews

Research outcomes informing the selection of public health interventions and strategies to implement them: A cross-sectional survey of Australian policy-maker and practitioner preferences

Examining 'institutional entrepreneurship' in healthcare redesign and improvement through comparative case study research: a study protocol

Value of Care: An Exploratory Qualitative Study with Doctors and Patients

Bridging the Divide: An Analysis of Allied Health Quality and Research Projects

How the Integration of Telehealth and Coordinated Care Approaches Impact Health Care Service Organization Structure and Ethos: Mixed Methods Study

Using a modified Delphi method to identify research priorities in an Australian regional health service

Research-related knowledge, understanding and practice in public mental health: the voices of social workers and occupational therapists

Understanding the role of opinion leaders in improving clinical effectiveness

Leaders' perspectives on learning health systems: a qualitative study

Measures to assess the performance of an Australian non-government charitable non-acute health service: A Delphi Survey of Organisational Stakeholders

Which strategies support the effective use of clinical practice guidelines and clinical quality registry data to inform health service delivery? A systematic review

Is it worth engaging in multi-stakeholder health services research collaborations? Reflections on key benefits, challenges and enabling mechanisms

Evidence based policy making and the ‘art’ of commissioning – how English healthcare commissioners access and use information and academic research in ‘real life’ decision-making: an empirical qualitative study