ObjectiveA mixed methods study exploring the UK general public's willingness to donate human biosamples (HBSs) for biomedical research.SettingCross-sectional focus groups followed by an online survey.ParticipantsTwelve focus groups (81 participants) selectively sampled to reflect a range of demographic groups; 1110 survey responders recruited through a stratified sampling method with quotas set on sex, age, geographical location, socioeconomic group and ethnicity.Main outcome measures(1) Identify participants’ willingness to donate HBSs for biomedical research, (2) explore acceptability towards donating different types of HBSs in various settings and (3) explore preferences regarding use and access to HBSs.Results87% of survey participants thought donation of HBSs was important and 75% wanted to be asked to donate in general. Responders who self-reported having some or good knowledge of the medical research process were significantly more likely to want to donate (p<0.001). Reasons why focus group participants saw donation as important included: it was a good way of reciprocating for the medical treatment received; it was an important way of developing drugs and treatments; residual tissue would otherwise go to waste and they or their family members might benefit. The most controversial types of HBSs to donate included: brain post mortem (29% would donate), eyes post mortem (35%), embryos (44%), spare eggs (48%) and sperm (58%). Regarding the use of samples, there were concerns over animal research (34%), research conducted outside the UK (35%), and research conducted by pharmaceutical companies (56%), although education and discussion were found to alleviate such concerns.ConclusionsThere is a high level of public support and willingness to donate HBSs for biomedical research. Underlying concerns exist regarding the use of certain types of HBSs and conditions under which they are used. Improved education and more controlled forms of consent for sensitive samples may mitigate such concerns.

ObjectivesThe Academic Clinical Fellowship (ACF) was introduced to support the early career clinical and research training of potential future clinical academics in England. The driver for the model was concern about falling numbers of clinical academic trainees. This study examines the impact of the ACF model, over its first 10 years, in developing clinical academic careers by tracking the progression of ACF trainees.DesignRetrospective analysis of National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) ACF career progression. This was performed using mixed methods including routine data collections of career destination, analysis of application rates to doctoral level fellowships and supplemented by survey information that captured the perceived benefits and challenges from previous ACFs and their current career activities.Participants1239 NIHR ACFs who completed or left their posts between 2006 and March 2015.ResultsACFs are perceived by the candidate population as attractive posts, with high numbers of applications leading to high fill rates. Balancing clinical and academic commitments is one of the reported challenges when completing an ACF. We have found that undertaking an ACF was shown to increase the likelihood of securing an externally funded doctoral training award and the vast majority of ACFs move into academic roles, with many completing PhDs. Previous ACFs continue to show positive career progression, predominantly in translational and clinical research. The knowledge acquired during the ACF continues to be useful in subsequent roles and trainees would recommend the scheme to others.ConclusionsThe NIHR ACF scheme is successful as part of an integrated training pathway in developing careers in academic medicine and dentistry.

ObjectiveIn 2017, the National Institute for Health Research (NIHR) academy produced a strategic review of training, which reported the variation in application characteristics associated with success rates. It was noted that variation in applicant characteristic was not independent of one another. Therefore, the aim of this secondary analysis was to investigate the inter-relationships in order to identify factors (or groups of factors) most associated with application numbers and success rates.DesignRetrospective data were gathered from 4388 applications to NIHR Academy between 2007 and 2016. Multinominal logistic regression models quantified the likelihood of success depending on changes in the explanatory factors; relative risk ratios with 95% CIs. A classification tree analysis was built using exhaustive χ2 automatic interaction detection to better understand the effect of interactions between explanatory variables on application success rates.Results936 (21.3%) applications were awarded. Applications from males and females were equally likely to be successful (p=0.71). There was an overall reduction in numbers of applications from females as award seniority increased from predoctoral to professorship. Applications from institutions with a medical school had a 2.6-fold increase in likelihood of success (p<0.001). Classification tree analysis revealed key predictors of application success: award level, type of programme, previous NIHR award experience and applying form a medical school.ConclusionSuccess rates did not differ according to gender, and doctors were not more likely to be successful than applications from other professions. Taken together, these findings suggest an essential fairness in how the quality of a submitted application is assessed, but they also raise questions about variation in the opportunity to submit a high-quality application. The companion qualitative study (Burkshaw et al. (2021) BMJ Open) provides valuable insight into potential candidate mechanisms and discusses how research capacity development initiatives might be targeted in the future.

ObjectiveA mixed-methods study exploring the UK general public's views towards consent for the use of biosamples for biomedical research.SettingCross-sectional population-based focus groups followed by an online survey.Participants12 focus groups (81 participants) selectively sampled to reflect a range of demographic groups; 1110 survey responders recruited through a stratified sampling method with quotas set on sex, age, geographical location, socioeconomic group and ethnicity.Main outcome measures(1) Views on the importance of consent when donating residual biosamples for medical research; (2) preferences for opt-in or opt-out consent approaches and (3) preferences for different consent models.ResultsParticipants believed obtaining consent for use of residual biosamples was important as it was ‘morally correct’ to ask, and enabled people to make an active choice and retain control over their biosamples. Survey responders preferred opt-in consent (55%); the strongest predictor was being from a low socioeconomic group (OR 2.22, 95% CI 1.41 to 3.57, p=0.001) and having a religious affiliation (OR 1.36, 95% CI 1.01 to 1.81, p=0.04). Focus group participants had a slight preference for opt-out consent because by using this approach more biosamples would be available and facilitate research. Concerning preferred models of consent for research use of biosamples, survey responders preferred specific consent with recontact for each study for which their biosamples are eligible. Focus group participants preferred generic consent as it provided ‘flexibility for researchers’ and reduced the likelihood that biosamples would be wasted. The strongest predictor for preferring specific consent was preferring opt-in consent (OR 4.58, 95% CI 3.30 to 6.35, p=0.015) followed by non-‘White’ ethnicity (OR 2.94, 95% CI 1.23 to 7.14, p<0.001).ConclusionsThere is a preference among the UK public for ongoing choice and control over donated biosamples; however, increased knowledge and opportunity for discussion is associated with acceptance of less restrictive consent models for some people.