Impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on ongoing health research: an ad hoc survey among investigators in Germany

Abstract

To gain insights into the impact of the COVID-19 pandemic on ongoing health research projects, using projects from a selected funding programme in Germany as an example.

Design

Online survey and validation workshop.

Setting

Lockdowns and social distancing policies impact on clinical and public health research in various forms, especially if unrelated to COVID-19. Research institutions have reduced onsite activities, data are often collected remotely, and during the height of the crisis, clinical researchers were partially forced to abandon their projects in favour of front-line care.

Participants survey

120 investigators of health research projects across Germany, performed between 15 and 25 May 2020; workshop: 32 investigators, performed on 28 May 2020.

Results

The response rate (78%) showed that the survey generated significant interest among investigators. 85 responses were included for analysis, and the majority of investigators (93%) reported that their projects were affected by the pandemic, with many (80%) stating that data collection was not possible as planned, and they could not carry out interventions as intended (67%). Other impacts were caused by staff being unavailable, for example, through child or elder care commitments or because of COVID-19 quarantine or illness. Investigators also reported that publications were delayed or not feasible at all (56%), and some experienced problems with PhD or Masters theses (18%). The majority of investigators had mitigation strategies in place such as adjustment of data collection methods using digital tools (46%) or of project implementation in general (46%), others made changes in research design or research questions (27%).

Conclusions

The COVID-19 pandemic has severely impacted on health research projects. The main challenge is now to mitigate negative effects and to improve long-term resilience in health research. The pandemic has also acted as a driver of innovation and change, for example, by accelerating the use of digital methods.

SciScore for 10.1101/2020.08.14.20174888: (What is this?)

Please note, not all rigor criteria are appropriate for all manuscripts.

Table 1: Rigor

Institutional Review Board Statement	Consent: Ethical considerations: All 144 principal investigators of the 174 studies (some lead two or more studies, see above) were asked to give informed consent for data collection and data storage for the accompanying research project, including the consent to (a) be sent an online questionnaire, to (b) have the questionnaire data analysed and saved. IRB: The study was approved by the Ethics Committee of the University of Regensburg (19-1630-101).
Randomization	not detected.
Blinding	not detected.
Power Analysis	not detected.
Sex as a biological variable	In 2016, the Ministry launched the ‘Healthy - for a lifetime’ funding programme (‘Gesundein Leben lang’) to better address the following groups: children and young people, the working population, older people as well as men and women.

Table 2: Resources

Software and Algorithms
Sentences	Resources
Statistical analysis: Data generated were analysed descriptively using Microsoft Excel.	Microsoft Excel suggested: (Microsoft Excel, RRID:SCR_016137)

Results from OddPub: We did not detect open data. We also did not detect open code. Researchers are encouraged to share open data when possible (see Nature blog).

Results from LimitationRecognizer: We detected the following sentences addressing limitations in the study:

This should be accompanied by a thorough investigation of the strengths and weaknesses as well as the comparability of different tools for interventions and data collection methods. Existing findings on the comparison of analogue and digital data collection methods are sparse and limited in scope, but so far indicate that there are no far-reaching differences (26–31). More research is required regarding issues such as acceptance, reach and over-/ underrepresentation of different groups, usability in different settings and for different topics. During data analysis, the influence of changes in collection methods and other deviations from study protocols as well as missing information need to be considered. Descriptions should delineate which of these irregularities are likely to be a result of the COVID-19 pandemic and which uncertainties remain (32). Funders should consider granting extensions to projects if these face delays because of the pandemic, and allow for adjustments in research design and research questions. Changes to funding itself may also be needed. To prepare for ongoing restrictions, further lockdowns or other pandemics, policy makers and funders could introduce more flexible funding instruments. Research that generates evidence about the validity and scientific rigour of digital methods or about the combination of digital and traditional methods will be needed to accompany the shift to a “new normality” in research, and it will also be a task for policy maker...

Results from TrialIdentifier: No clinical trial numbers were referenced.

Results from Barzooka: We did not find any issues relating to the usage of bar graphs.

Results from JetFighter: We did not find any issues relating to colormaps.

Results from rtransparent:

Thank you for including a conflict of interest statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
Thank you for including a funding statement. Authors are encouraged to include this statement when submitting to a journal.
No protocol registration statement was detected.

Read the original source