Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on the research activities of UK ophthalmologists

Abstract

Background The COVID-19 pandemic has impacted negatively on many areas of biomedical research and there is concern that academic recovery will take several years. This survey aimed to define the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on UK ophthalmologists’ research activities and understand the implications for recovery. Methods An online survey comprising multiple choice and free-text questions was designed, piloted and then distributed to Royal College of Ophthalmologists (RCOphth) members in January 2021. Respondent characteristics, research expectations and experiences through the pandemic were captured. Descriptive and comparative statistics were applied to quantitative data alongside content analysis of qualitative data. Results In total, 148 respondents (3.7% of RCOphth membership) comprised 46 trainees (31.1%), 97 consultants (65.5%) and 5 SAS doctors (3.4%); 54 had clinical-academic roles (36.5%) and 65/94 (69.1%) ophthalmologists with fully clinical posts identified as research-active. Of 114 research-active respondents, 104 (91.2%) reported an impact on their research from COVID-19; negative impacts included loss of research time (n = 69), research delays (n = 96) and funding shortfalls (n = 63). Content analysis identified five common themes; type of research activity, clinical demands, institutional challenges, COVID-19 alignment and work-life balance. Conclusions UK ophthalmology research has been adversely impacted by the pandemic. A substantial proportion of UK ophthalmologists are research active, but 20.4% of those surveyed felt that the pandemic had made research less attractive. Strategic steps must be taken to nurture UK ophthalmologists’ engagement with research, especially for those who currently do no research, if the profession is to align itself with the Government vision of ‘Research for All’.

Effect of Covid-19 on Eye Banks and Corneal Transplantations: Current Perspectives

“…53 , 97 This resulted in a higher rate of declined funding applications otherwise successful in other years, as well as in the delay or full termination of ongoing research projects. 54 However, no innovation could be expected without scientific research. In this context, more solid and efficient funding programs for research and development are needed to accelerate the transition from preclinical to clinical settings.…”

“…Similarly, Hogg et al, in a UK survey, described 79.8% of 148 active researchers reporting an overall negative impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on their research activities, with main drawbacks being the unavailability or shortage of funding opportunities, lack of necessary human and physical resources, and redeployment of research staff. 54 Three main consequences derived. First, 92.3% participants to the survey described delay or full termination of their research projects.…”

“…First, 92.3% participants to the survey described delay or full termination of their research projects. 54 Second, observational research seemed to prosper along with research activities that could continue or were made more efficient by the culture shift toward using virtual platforms. 54 Third, a small number of researchers decided to reframe their activities to include aspects addressing questions specifically related to the COVID-19 pandemic.…”

“… 54 Third, a small number of researchers decided to reframe their activities to include aspects addressing questions specifically related to the COVID-19 pandemic. 54 …”

“…3,[9][10][11][12] As a consequence, the Eye Bank Institutions worldwide have been facing unprecedented and unforeseeable operational challenges, with a considerable reduction in the number of both procured and distributed corneoscleral buttons, as well as with an increased proportion of discarded corneas due to non-use. 13 For instance, the Eye Bank Association of America (EBAA) reported for the 2020 a ~20% reduction in tissue procurement (54,740 donors in 2020, compared with 68,759 in 2019). 14,15 An exacerbation in the shortage of corneal donors, and a reduction in the donor-to-recipient ratio might derive, thus aggravating the condition of an already vulnerable system (e.g., in 2016 it was reported one cornea available every 70 needed).…”