Impacts of COVID-19 on clinical research in the UK: a multi-method qualitative case study
Open accessAbstract
BACKGROUND: Clinical research has been central to the global response to COVID-19, and the United Kingdom (UK), with its research system embedded within the National Health Service (NHS), has been singled out globally for the scale and speed of its COVID-19 research response. This paper explores the impacts of COVID-19 on clinical research in an NHS Trust and how the embedded research system was adapted and repurposed to support the COVID-19 response. METHODS AND FINDINGS: Using a multi-method qualitative case study of a research-intensive NHS Trust in London UK, we collected data through a questionnaire (n = 170) and semi-structured interviews (n = 24) with research staff working in four areas: research governance; research leadership; research delivery; and patient and public involvement. We also observed key NHS Trust research prioritisation meetings (40 hours) and PPI activity (4.5 hours) and analysed documents produced by the Trust and national organisation relating to COVID-19 research. Data were analysed for a descriptive account of the Trust's COVID-19 research response and research staff's experiences. Data were then analysed thematically. Our analysis identifies three core themes: centralisation; pace of work; and new (temporary) work practices. By centralising research prioritisation at both national and Trust levels, halting non-COVID-19 research and redeploying research staff, an increased pace in the setup and delivery of COVID-19-related research was possible. National and Trust-level responses also led to widescale changes in working practices by adapting protocols and developing local processes to maintain and deliver research. These were effective practical solutions borne out of necessity and point to how the research system was able to adapt to the requirements of the pandemic. CONCLUSION: The Trust and national COVID-19 response entailed a rapid large-scale reorganisation of research staff, research infrastructures and research priorities. The Trust's local processes that enabled them to enact national policy prioritising COVID-19 research worked well, especially in managing finite resources, and also demonstrate the importance and adaptability of the research workforce. Such findings are useful as we consider how to adapt our healthcare delivery and research practices both at the national and global level for the future. However, as the pandemic continues, research leaders and policymakers must also take into account the short and long term impact of COVID-19 prioritisation on non-COVID-19 health research and the toll of the emergency response on research staff.
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Integrity signals
Registry
Cites
Statistics
Claims the paper makes
The claims and statistics of this paper haven’t been checked yet.
Run the check — free, no account needed. It reads the open-access text and checks the sources it cites.
Claims other papers make about this one
Each is checked against this paper’s own text: does it say what the citing paper says it does?
Within the UK, the NHS restructured its delivery of care by redeploying all non-urgent care staff to frontline Covid-19 services.
“Within the United Kingdom, the National Health Service (NHS) restructured its delivery of care by redeploying all non-urgent care staff to frontline Covid-19 services [1].”
From Legacy lessons from the COVID-19 era to improve trial participation and retention: Views from trial participants, PPIE contributors and trial staff across the NIHR portfolio (2024) · cites this paper as [1]
The Results section (‘Centralisation: Prioritising COVID-19 research and redeploying research staff’; page not provided) reports that one Trust redeployed 131 of its 165 clinical research delivery staff to frontline care. It does not establish that the NHS redeployed all non-urgent care staff across the UK, and the staff described were research staff rather than all non-urgent care staff. (LLM, conf=0.90)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measuredStudies operating during the paused phase struggled to recruit and retain study participants.
“Studies operating during the paused phase struggled to recruit and retain study participants [1].”
From Legacy lessons from the COVID-19 era to improve trial participation and retention: Views from trial participants, PPIE contributors and trial staff across the NIHR portfolio (2024) · cites this paper as [1]
The Results sections on research prioritisation and the pace of work report that recruitment was paused for many studies and remained slow to recover. The section on virtual working describes disrupted participant visits, but says many studies maintained some continuity through remote follow-up; it does not establish that they struggled to retain participants. (LLM, conf=0.86)
Experimental — accuracy not yet measured
Self-check
Percentages, sums and reported differences re-computed from the paper’s own numbers.
The self-check needs the paper’s full text.
Cites
Using thematic analysis in psychology
Braun, V., & Clarke, V. (2006) · Qualitative Research in Psychology · doi:10.1191/1478088706qp063oa · Cited by 194,414 · see citing works
(1984) · Cited by 81,983 · see citing works
Case Study Research: Design and Methods
Chaiklin, H. (1991) · The Journal of Nervous and Mental Disease · doi:10.1097/00005053-199102000-00025 · Cited by 39,631 · see citing works
Qualitative research and evaluation methods
Patton, M. Q. (1980) · Cited by 35,637 · see citing works
The Art of Case Study Research
Johnson, K. E., & Stake, R. E. (1996) · Modern Language Journal · doi:10.2307/329758 · Cited by 15,830 · see citing works
The art of case study research
Savolainen, R. (1996) · Library & Information Science Research · doi:10.1016/s0740-8188(96)90053-5 · Cited by 8,168 · see citing works
Theory Construction in Qualitative Research: From Grounded Theory to Abductive Analysis
Timmermans, S., & Tavory, I. (2012) · Sociological Theory · doi:10.1177/0735275112457914 · Cited by 4,349 · see citing works
Archibald, M. M., Ambagtsheer, R. C., Casey, M. G., & Lawless, M. (2019) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/1609406919874596 · Cited by 2,164 · see citing works
COVID-19 and the workplace: Implications, issues, and insights for future research and action.
Kniffin, K. M., Narayanan, J., Anseel, F., Antonakis, J., Ashford, S. J., Bakker, A. B., Bamberger, P. A., Bapuji Hari, B., Bhave, D. P., Choi, V. K., et al. (2020) · American Psychologist · doi:10.1037/amp0000716 · Cited by 1,927 · see citing works
National Institute for Health Research
Evans, R. G. (2014) · Nursing Standard · doi:10.7748/ns.28.49.32.s37 · Cited by 1,350 · see citing works
Covid-19 and Health Care’s Digital Revolution
Keesara, S., Jonas, A., & Schulman, K. (2020) · New England Journal of Medicine · doi:10.1056/nejmp2005835 · Cited by 1,126 · see citing works
Skype interviewing: reflections of two PhD researchers
Deakin, H., & Wakefield, K. (2013) · Qualitative Research · doi:10.1177/1468794113488126 · Cited by 856 · see citing works
Drug treatments for covid-19: living systematic review and network meta-analysis
Siemieniuk, R. A., Bartoszko, J. J., Zeraatkar, D., Kum, E., Qasim, A., Díaz Martinez, J. P., Izcovich, A., Rochwerg, B., Lamontagne, F., Han, M. A., et al. (2020) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.m2980 · Cited by 846 · see citing works
Use of Telemedicine and Virtual Care for Remote Treatment in Response to COVID-19 Pandemic
Jnr., B. A. (2020) · Journal of Medical Systems · doi:10.1007/s10916-020-01596-5 · Cited by 800 · see citing works
McColl, E., Jacoby, A., Thomas, L., Soutter, J. L., Bamford, C. H., Steen, N., Thomas, R., Harvey, E., Garratt, A., & Bond, J. B. (2001) · Health Technology Assessment · doi:10.3310/hta5310 · Cited by 779 · see citing works
How to read a paper: Papers that go beyond numbers (qualitative research)
Greenhalgh, T., & Taylor, R. S. (1997) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.315.7110.740 · Cited by 753 · see citing works
Skype interviewing: The new generation of online synchronous interview in qualitative research
Janghorban, R., Roudsari, R. L., & Taghipour, A. (2014) · International Journal of Qualitative Studies on Health and Well-Being · doi:10.3402/qhw.v9.24152 · Cited by 562 · see citing works
Working from home and income inequality: risks of a ‘new normal’ with COVID-19
Bonacini, L., Gallo, G., & Scicchitano, S. (2020) · Journal of Population Economics · doi:10.1007/s00148-020-00800-7 · Cited by 476 · see citing works
Malmqvist, J., Hellberg, K., Möllås, G., Rose, R., & Shevlin, M. (2019) · International Journal of Qualitative Methods · doi:10.1177/1609406919878341 · Cited by 461 · see citing works
In the Meantime: Temporality and Cultural Politics
Sharma, S. E. (2014) · Project Muse (Johns Hopkins University) · Cited by 402 · see citing works
Mental health of staff working in intensive care during Covid-19
Greenberg, N. L., Weston, D., Hall, C. E., Caulfield, T., Williamson, V., & Fong, K. J. (2020) · Occupational Medicine · doi:10.1093/occmed/kqaa220 · Cited by 369 · see citing works
Hanney, S. R., Castle‐Clarke, S., Grant, J., Guthrie, S., Henshall, C., Mestre‐Ferrandiz, J., Pistollato, M., Pollitt, A., Sussex, J., & Wooding, S. (2015) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/1478-4505-13-1 · Cited by 366 · see citing works
Work-Life Conflict During the COVID-19 Pandemic
Schieman, S., Badawy, P. J., Milkie, M. A., & Bierman, A. (2021) · Socius Sociological Research for a Dynamic World · doi:10.1177/2378023120982856 · Cited by 295 · see citing works
Loeb, A. E., Rao, S. S., Ficke, J. R., Morris, C. D., Riley, L. H., & Levin, A. S. (2020) · Journal of the American Academy of Orthopaedic Surgeons · doi:10.5435/jaaos-d-20-00380 · Cited by 270 · see citing works
Rentsch, C. T., Beckman, J. A., Tomlinson, L. A., Gellad, W. F., Alcorn, C., Kidwai‐Khan, F., Skanderson, M., Brittain, E. L., King, J. T., Ho, Y.-L. A., et al. (2021) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.n311 · Cited by 238 · see citing works
Lamb, D., Gnanapragasam, S., Greenberg, N. L., Bhundia, R., Carr, E., Hotopf, M. H., Razavi, R., Raine, R., Cross, S., Dewar, A., et al. (2021) · Occupational and Environmental Medicine · doi:10.1136/oemed-2020-107276 · Cited by 154 · see citing works
Hanney, S. R., Wooding, S., Sussex, J., & Grant, J. (2020) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/s12961-020-00571-3 · Cited by 91 · see citing works
Potential health and economic impacts of dexamethasone treatment for patients with COVID-19
Aguas, R. J., Mahdi, A., Shretta, R., Horby, P., Landray, M., White, L. J., Arifi, F., Zhumalieva, C., Lubis, I. N. D., Monteiro, A. B., et al. (2021) · Nature Communications · doi:10.1038/s41467-021-21134-2 · Cited by 76 · see citing works
Emerging Lessons From COVID-19 for the US Clinical Research Enterprise
Angus, D. C., Gordon, A. C., & Bauchner, H. (2021) · JAMA · doi:10.1001/jama.2021.3284 · Cited by 60 · see citing works
Integrating research into clinical practice: challenges and solutions for Canada
Lamontagne, F., Rowan, K., & Guyatt, G. H. (2020) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.202397 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Reid, M. J. A., Karim, Q. A., Geng, E. H., & Goosby, E. (2021) · PLoS Medicine · doi:10.1371/journal.pmed.1003564 · Cited by 50 · see citing works
Lessons from the pandemic on the value of research infrastructure
Roope, L. S. J., Candio, P., Kiparoglou, V., et al. (2021) · Health Research Policy and Systems · doi:10.1186/s12961-021-00704-2 · Cited by 25 · see citing works
Covid-19: Oxford team begins vaccine trials in Brazil and South Africa to determine efficacy
Mahase, E. (2020) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.m2612 · Cited by 24 · see citing works
Covid-19 makes the future of UK clinical research uncertain
Iacobucci, G. (2020) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.m1619 · Cited by 16 · see citing works
Increasing recruitment into covid-19 trials
Darzi, A. W., Goddard, A. F., Henderson, K., et al. (2021) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.n235 · Cited by 14 · see citing works
Strengthening research in the NHS
Johnson, M. J., & Black, J. (2018) · BMJ · doi:10.1136/bmj.k1254 · Cited by 6 · see citing works
Building research infrastructure across a health service
Hanney, S. R. (2021) · Canadian Medical Association Journal · doi:10.1503/cmaj.77958 · Cited by 2 · see citing works
Flagged first, then by citations
Research works printed but not linked: 1
- [32]Baraitser L. Enduring time. London: Bloomsbury Publishing; 2017.
Cited by
Sorted by citations
Leggett, H., Vinall-Collier, K., Csikar, J., Barber, S., Carr, R., Bhatti, A., & Pavitt, S. (2024) · PLoS ONE · doi:10.1371/journal.pone.0296343 · Cited by 4 · see citing works
- Authors
- Wyatt, D., Faulkner-Gurstein, R., Cowan, H., & Wolfe, C. D. A.
- Affiliations
- King's College London (GB)
- Corresponding author
- Wyatt, David
- Venue
- PLoS ONE
- Publisher
- Public Library of Science (PLoS)
- Published
- 2021-08-31
- Volume
- 16
- Issue
- 8
- Pages
- e0256871
- ISSN
- 1932-6203 (ISSN-L)
- PMC
- PMC8407556
- OpenAlex
- W3197947952
- Cited by
- 35
- References
- 38
- Citations by year
- 2026: 2 · 2025: 9 · 2024: 6 · 2023: 4 · 2022: 13 · 2021: 1
- FWCI
- 5.19
- Type
- journal article
- Language
- en
- Open access
- gold
- doi.org
- Licence
- Locations
- PLoS ONE (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed Central (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- PubMed (publishedVersion)
- Research Portal (King's College London) (publishedVersion, cc-by)
- Aston Publications Explorer (Aston University) (acceptedVersion)
- DOAJ (DOAJ: Directory of Open Access Journals) (submittedVersion, cc-by-sa)
- Funders
- National Institute for Health Research (IS‐BRC‐1215‐20006)
- Topics
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Public Health, Environmental and Occupational Health › Health and Medical Research Impacts
- Health Sciences › Medicine › Oncology › COVID-19 and healthcare impacts
- Health Sciences › Health Professions › General Health Professions › Health Policy Implementation Science
- Keywords
- COVID-19 pandemic, clinical research, NHS trusts, research prioritization, research governance, research leadership, research workforce, patient and public involvement, research infrastructure, science policy, emergency response, United Kingdom
- MeSH terms
- COVID-19, SARS-CoV-2, Decision Making, United Kingdom, Humans, Interviews as Topic, Research, Research Personnel
About these checks
Registry, retraction, Cites and statistics results are computed, not judged, with one exception: a printed reference that no index lists is read once by a model before it counts as a citation error. Claims are extracted by a model and kept only when their quote appears verbatim in the text; each cited source is then checked, with a model’s help, for whether it says what the claim relies on. Those verdicts can be wrong — read the claim’s quote and the cited source before relying on one.
Statistics and arithmetic are recomputed, not judged.
Confidence bands are shown only for fields calibrated on our annotated test set. None is calibrated yet, so no band is shown.
What counts as a claim ›How we measure confidence ›How we check this ›
Are you an author, or do you see a problem with this page? Request a review
